alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001023298
<NAME> AVENUE ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         648,694
<SECURITIES>                                   702,101
<RECEIVABLES>                                  201,276
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,560,378
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         267,479
<DEPRECIATION>                                 168,672
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,862,780
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,184,199
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        40,728
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,637,853
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,862,780
<SALES>                                        239,701
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               239,701
<CGS>                                           32,699
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  697,461
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               664,762
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (457,760)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,301
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (463,061)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (463,061)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.11)
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 07-cr-23-PB

Matthew Cormier

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the

May 1, 2007 trial in the above case, citing counsel’s involvement

in another case which has prevented him from sufficiently

preparing for trial in this matter. The government does not

object to a continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, for the above reason and to allow the parties

additional time to properly prepare for trial, the court will

continue the trial from May 1, 2007 to June 5, 2007. In agreeing

to continue the trial, the court finds pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. §

3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated reasons, the ends of

justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the best

interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

Case 1:07-cr-00023-PB Document 11 Filed 05/03/07 Page 1 of 2
2

The April 25, 2007 final pretrial conference is continued to

May 23, 2007 at 4:30 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

April 26, 2007

cc: Peter Papps, AUSA

Harry Batchelder, Esq.

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00023-PB Document 11 Filed 05/03/07 Page 2 of 2
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

ERIC MUKASA, a.k.a. Elijah Mukasa,

a.k.a. Moses Mukasa,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 10-50424

D.C. No. 8:09-cr-00178-SVW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 19, 2011** 

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

Eric Mukasa appeals from the 48-month sentence imposed following his

guilty-plea conviction for encouraging aliens to enter or reside in the United States

FILED

JAN 05 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-50424

illegally, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) and (B)(I). We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Mukasa contends that the district court committed procedural error by

sentencing him to an above-Guidelines sentence under the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

factors without prior notice, by failing to undertake an individualized analysis, and

by failing to explain why it rejected his request for a downward variance based on

post-offense rehabilitation. The record belies these contentions. See United States

v. Orlando, 553 F.3d 1235, 1238 (9th Cir. 2009) (“Garden variety considerations

of culpability, criminal history, likelihood of re-offense, seriousness of the crime,

should not generally come as a surprise to trial lawyers who have prepared for

sentencing.”) (quotation marks, citation and alterations omitted); United States v.

Perez-Perez, 512 F.3d 514, 516 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding no error where it was clear

from the transcript that the sentencing judge had considered the defendant’s

mitigation arguments, even though he did not explicitly reference them in

imposing sentence).

AFFIRMED.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Michael D. Rix

v. Civil No. 05-cv-354-JD

Warren Dowaliby, Superintendent,

Strafford County House of

Corrections, et al.

O R D E R

On April 24, 2006, I recommended that Rix be given the

opportunity to amend his complaint to name proper defendants to

the claims that I determined sufficiently stated to be served

(document nol 27). Rix has responded with an amended complaint

(document no. 30) listing the four claims previously approved,

namely a claim alleging an improper medical diet, a claim

alleging the improper administration of insulin, a claim alleging

inadequate toenail care, and a claim alleging inadequate care for

a cyst, and naming defendants to each of the claims. 

Conclusion

Without commenting on the merits of the complaint, I find

that Rix has stated claims upon which relief may be granted

against the named defendants as follows: an inadequate medical

Case 1:05-cv-00354-JD Document 33 Filed 06/07/06 Page 1 of 3
2

diet claim against defendants Warren Dowaliby, Dan Heon, Pauline

Zink and Marilyn Jewett, an improper administration of insulin

claim against PrimeCare Medical and Sharon Hey, an inadequate

care of toenails claim against Dowaliby, and an inadequate care

of cyst claim against Janice Stoker, Dr. Benadict Heiderscheidt,

Tracy Warren, PrimeCare Medical, and Maxim Healthcare Services. 

Accordingly, I order that the complaint be served on Defendants. 

My review of the file indicates that, with the exception of

defendant Dowaliby, for whom a summons form has been provided,

plaintiff has not prepared summons forms for the defendants. 

Plaintiff shall prepare summonses for each defendant named herein

and submit them to the Clerk’s office within thirty (30) days of

the date of this order. Upon receipt of the completed summonses,

the Clerk’s office shall issue the summonses against defendants

and forward to the United States Marshal for the District of New

Hampshire (the “U.S. Marshal’s office”) the summonses and copies

of the complaint as well as Rix’s other substantive pleadings

(document nos. 1, 5, 9, 13, 20 & 30), the previous orders and

recommendations issued by this Court (document nos. 7, 8, 10, 27

& 32) and this Order. Upon receipt of the necessary 

Case 1:05-cv-00354-JD Document 33 Filed 06/07/06 Page 2 of 3
3

documentation, the U.S. Marshal’s office shall effect service

upon Defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2). 

Defendants are instructed to answer or otherwise plead

within twenty days of service. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A). 

Plaintiff is instructed that all future pleadings, written

motions, notices, or similar papers shall be served directly on

the Defendants by delivering or mailing the materials to them or

their attorney(s), pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b). 

SO ORDERED.

________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: June 7, 2006

cc: Michael D. Rix, pro se

Case 1:05-cv-00354-JD Document 33 Filed 06/07/06 Page 3 of 3
#### Mrs. Mary Edna JOHNSON, administratrix of the Succession of Arthur Lee Johnson, deceased, plaintiff-appellee-appellant v. EL DORADO CREOSOTING COMPANY, defendant-appellant and Coal Operators Casualty Company, defendant-appellee.

No. 8121.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

March 24, 1954.

Rehearing Denied April 22, 1954.

Writ of Certiorari Granted May 31, 1954.

Booth, Lockard, Jack & Pleasant, Shreveport, for El Dorado Creosoting Co.

Gravel & Downs, Alexandria, for Coal Operators Cas. Co.

■ Spencer & Spencer, El • Dorado, Ark., Jackson & Reynolds, Homer, for Mrs. -Mary Edna Johnson and others.

GLADNEY, Judge.

The issues of both fact and' law presented in this case are not different from those presented in Johnson v. El Dorado Creosoting Company and Coal Operators Casualty Company, La.App., 71 So.2d 613. Our.findings therein are decisive.in the instant case.

The judgment from which appealed is reversed and set aside insofar as it overruled the .exception to the jurisdiction ratione personae filed by the El Dorado Creosoting Company, Inc., and it is ordered that said exception be sustained as to the above named defendant, and plaintiff’s suit be and is hereby dismissed as of non-suit at plaintiff’s-' cost. In all other respects the judgment is .affirmed at plaintiff’s cost. ' ¡.

AYRES, J., is recused.-
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1999
<CASH>                                       7,087,349
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  776,517
<ALLOWANCES>                                    75,000
<INVENTORY>                                    310,918
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,147,228
<PP&E>                                         680,568
<DEPRECIATION>                                 187,772
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,689,719
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          562,726
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,813
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,121,180
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,689,719
<SALES>                                      1,070,562
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,070,562
<CGS>                                          332,649
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,047,501
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                75,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (217,417)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (2,167,171)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (2,167,171)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (2,167,171)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.37)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.37)
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-7112

TUNZY A. SANDERS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN OF ALLENDALE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Charleston. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:17-cv-01819-HMH)

Submitted: February 26, 2019 Decided: March 1, 2019

Before KING, THACKER, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tunzy A. Sanders, Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jane Brown, Senior Assistant Attorney 

General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 

Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Tunzy A. Sanders seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely 

his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A 

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable 

jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on 

procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a 

constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Sanders has not 

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and 

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument 

would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

J. Krist Schell

v. Civil No. 06-cv-425-JM

Thomas W. Kent

O R D E R

Defendant has filed a “Memorandum on Indemnification and

Defense Costs.” The issue of indemnification and defense costs

was ruled upon in the summary judgment order in May of 2008 and

was further considered in the October 2008 order on

reconsideration. Defendant’s memorandum is a miscellaneous

filing not permitted by local or federal rule. It is not in

furtherance or support of any pending motion and is untimely if

intended as a further motion for reconsideration. The Clerk is

ordered to strike document no. 76 from the docket. Any further

such filings will result in sanctions.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: December 10, 2008

cc: Daniel P. Schwarz, Esq.

 David A Strock, Esq.

 Melinda J. Caterine, Esq.

 K. William Clauson, Esq.

Case 1:06-cv-00425-JM Document 77 Filed 12/10/08 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 10.1 


  


SECURITIES
PURCHASE AGREEMENT


 





This SECURITIES PURCHASE
AGREEMENT (the “Agreement”), dated as of September 3, 2019, between Shineco, Inc., a Delaware corporation
(the “Company”), and the investor (“Buyer”).


 


Buyer wishes to purchase,
and the Company wishes to sell shares of Common Stock for $[_________] in the aggregate at a purchase price of $0.52. Number of
shares of Common Stock to be issued shall be [__________].







 


NOW,
THEREFORE, the Company and Buyer hereby agree as follows:


 


	1.	PURCHASE
                                         AND SALE OF SHARES OF COMMON STOCK.



 


(a) Purchase
Price. The aggregate purchase price for the common shares to be purchased by Buyer shall be paid within two business days
immediately after the signing of the Agreement herein.


 


(b) Payment
of Purchase Price; Delivery of Securities. (i) Buyer shall pay the applicable Purchase Price to the Company for the
common shares to be issued and sold to Buyer by wire transfer of immediately available funds in accordance with the
Company’s written wire instructions and (ii) the Company shall issue to Buyer the common shares for such Closing, duly
executed on behalf of the Company and registered in the name of Buyer or its designee.


 


	2.	COVENANT.



 


The
Company shall use the proceeds from the sale of the Securities for general corporate purposes.


 


	3.	MISCELLANEOUS.



 


This
Agreement may be executed in two or more identical counterparts, all of which shall be considered one and the same agreement and
shall become effective when counterparts have been signed by each party and delivered to the other party. In the event that any
signature is delivered by facsimile transmission or by an e-mail which contains a portable document format (.pdf) file of an executed
signature page, such signature page shall create a valid and binding obligation of the party executing (or on whose behalf such
signature is executed) with the same force and effect as if such signature page were an original thereof.


 


[signature
pages follow]








 






     


     


    

 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, each of Buyer and the Company has caused its signature page to this Agreement to be duly executed as of the
date first written above.


 


	 	COMPANY: 
	 	SHINECO, INC.
	 	 	 
	 	By:	
	 	Name:	Yuying
    Zhang
	 	Title:
    	CEO
	 	 	 
	 	BUYER: 	
	 	 	 
	 	By:	
	 	Name:
Exhibit 32(b)

ENERGY FUTURE HOLDINGS CORP.

Certificate Pursuant to Section 906

of Sarbanes  Oxley Act of 2002

CERTIFICATION OF CFO

The undersigned, Paul M. Keglevic,
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Energy Future Holdings Corp. (the Company), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:



| | 1. | The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 (the Report) fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this instrument to be executed this 28th day
of April, 2011.



/s/ PAUL M. KEGLEVICName:

Paul M. KeglevicTitle:

Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Energy Future Holdings Corp. and will be
retained by Energy Future Holdings Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT
31.01





RULE
13a-14(a)/15d-14(a)


CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER






I, John
Hummel, certify that:






1. I have
reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of AIS Futures Fund IV
L.P.;




2. Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
with respect to the period covered by this report;




3. Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;




4. The
registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:




(a)
Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;




(b)
Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and




(c)
Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the Partnership’s most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and




5.  The
registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):




(a) All
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and




(b) Any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial
reporting.









Date:
November 14, 2008




By:  /s/ John
Hummel


John
Hummel


President
(principal executive and principal financial officer)


AIS
Futures Management LLC


General
Partner of AIS Futures Fund IV L.P.








S-2