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


<ARTICLE>                       5
<LEGEND>
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                           0001023877
<NAME>                          Goung Hei Investment Co., Ltd.
<MULTIPLIER>                                                          1
<CURRENCY>                                                   US Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                           DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                              JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                                JUN-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                                       1
<CASH>                                                                0
<SECURITIES>                                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                         0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                      0
<PP&E>                                                                0
<DEPRECIATION>                                                        0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                        0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                                 0
<BONDS>                                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                                           0
<COMMON>                                                             17
<OTHER-SE>                                                          (17)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                          0
<SALES>                                                               0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                      0
<CGS>                                                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                         0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                      0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                    0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                       0
<INCOME-TAX>                                                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                   0
<DISCONTINUED>                                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                       0
<CHANGES>                                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                                          0
<EPS-BASIC>                                                         0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                         0



</TABLE>
#### Franklin D. ROSE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 45586.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

July 12, 1972.

John T. Forbis, Childress, for appellant.

Jim D. Vollers, State’s Atty., Robert A. Huttash, Asst. State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION

ODOM, Judge.

This appeal is from a conviction for the offense of driving a motor vehicle while intoxicated, subsequent offense. Punishment was assessed by the court at one year.

The sole ground of error is that appellant was denied the right to make argument to the court after the evidence had closed.

The record shows that the appellant waived his right to a jury trial and entered a plea of guilty before the court. He was duly admonished and the evidence was presented. Thereafter, both the state and the defense announced that they closed. The following then occurred:

> “THE COURT: Mr. Rose, would you stand, please, sir?

> As you were informed' previously by this Court, if you persisted in entering your plea of guilty, the Court would hear evidence, and if the evidence in connection with your plea showed that you were guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the Court would find you guilty and assess your punishment within the limits prescribed by Law.

> “You persisted in pleading guilty, and the Court has heard the evidence in this case, and in the opinion of the Court, you are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense charged in the Indictment, and the Court fixes your punishment at confinement in the Texas Department of Corrections for a term of one year.”

*643No objection was addressed to the court’s prompt pronouncement of judgment, nor was a request made for argument. The contention was raised for first time on motion for a new trial. Since this was a plea of guilty before the court, we fail to see any harm shown.

Appellant orally argued before this court that had he not been deprived of argument he could have pleaded for probation. True, but he could have done so prior to sentence. No error is shown.

The judgment is affirmed.
10

A.6. Share of Non-real-estate Bank Loans with a Floating Interest Rate Made to FarmersPercent

Size of loan Si

Purpose of loan (thousands of dollars) 

Other Farm 

current machinery 1 10 25 100

All Feeder Other operating and to to to and Sma

Period loans livestock livestock expenses1 equipment Other2 9 24 99 over mid-

1992...... 71.7 78.5 63.5 66.3 47.8 75.3 57.3 59.1 61.2 78.6 1993...... 76.7 84.6 70.0 70.3 48.2 78.1 60.1 61.0 64.5 83.9 1994...... 75.1 82.9 74.3 72.3 51.6 75.7 58.6 59.8 70.4 80.2 1995...... 73.8 83.9 75.9 73.0 53.1 72.2 61.7 63.9 73.6 76.7 1996...... 63.1 58.1 71.2 67.3 32.9 61.4 60.6 61.5 69.1 62.2 1997...... 65.8 66.4 73.2 67.8 49.9 64.3 60.1 58.0 68.0 67.0 1998...... 54.4 55.0 59.4 68.5 46.7 42.0 57.6 54.8 62.7 51.1 1999...... 60.7 45.6 66.0 68.6 58.2 52.0 52.6 54.6 60.2 63.1 2000...... 66.9 57.3 60.7 67.0 62.2 76.7 53.4 54.6 61.8 74.5 2001...... 74.5 72.9 65.6 75.0 61.0 80.5 58.8 60.9 69.4 81.5 2002...... 75.1 64.6 65.4 75.8 60.9 84.1 67.8 64.5 68.4 81.2 2003...... 74.3 68.7 59.6 74.6 69.5 86.5 67.6 65.1 63.0 82.1 2000: Q3... 71.0 60.0 59.5 78.9 38.6 72.9 57.3 57.9 67.8 79.2  Q4... 66.5 66.8 56.2 62.8 51.0 81.6 51.6 53.2 65.7 73.1 2001: Q1... 67.7 64.7 73.7 73.4 50.8 63.9 60.0 60.4 66.4 70.4  Q2... 76.1 77.5 56.8 73.8 79.0 85.1 57.3 57.4 69.0 86.2  Q3... 76.5 72.5 72.6 75.5 54.9 86.9 58.0 63.5 70.7 86.6  Q4... 78.1 74.2 63.6 78.3 38.0 88.5 60.5 63.3 72.2 84.4 2002: Q1... 72.3 62.1 64.1 69.7 57.9 88.1 64.2 57.5 64.4 79.5  Q2... 75.1 56.2 72.9 74.5 52.8 89.1 69.6 67.6 72.9 79.3  Q3... 72.2 53.6 57.8 78.2 75.1 67.9 68.5 68.7 68.5 74.8  Q4... 81.4 78.1 65.4 81.8 37.9 93.5 67.6 62.8 68.0 92.2 2003: Q1... 74.7 64.0 79.5 75.4 61.7 86.0 68.2 67.5 63.7 80.8  Q2... 69.2 53.9 63.8 67.1 74.0 84.0 66.7 62.8 54.8 79.9  Q3... 78.2 74.9 41.0 81.0 78.2 88.8 69.7 64.4 73.6 84.1  Q4... 74.9 75.5 53.0 75.3 67.4 87.1 66.0 65.6 61.6 83.4 2004: Q1... 69.4 65.2 62.7 66.8 55.1 86.3 64.5 66.2 61.9 72.3  Note. Data are estimates from the Federal Reserve System’s Survey of the Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers. Quarterly estimates annual rate and are based on loans made during the first full week of the second month of the quarter. 1. Loans used primarily to finance such items as current crop production expenses and the care and feeding of livestock (including p 2. Typically loans for which the lender does not know the purpose. 3. Portfolios with $25 million or less in farm loans. 4. Portfolios with more than $25 million in farm loans.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FORM
10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 1998, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-Q FILING.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          45,444
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,610
<ALLOWANCES>                                        50
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                53,458
<PP&E>                                           5,821
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,201
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  58,505
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,825
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           136
<OTHER-SE>                                      44,544
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    58,505
<SALES>                                         10,059
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                10,059
<CGS>                                            2,092
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,092
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,732
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,806
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,052
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,754
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,754
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .12
        

</TABLE>
**
**Exhibit 12.1**

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Guangjie Jin, certify that: 

 
 1.
I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Q&KInternational Group Limited; 

 
 2.
Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial 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 company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 
 4.
The company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the company and have: 

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

 
 (b)
[intentionally omitted] 

 
 (c)
Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisreport 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 

 
 (d)
Disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 
 5.
The company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the company’s auditors and the audit committee of the company’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 overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the company’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 inthe company’s internal control over financial reporting. 
**

Date: February 18, 2020By: /s/ Guangjie JinName: Guangjie JinTitle: 
Chairman of the Board of Directors and

ChiefExecutive Officer (principal executive officer)
#### Regina Smith et al., Plaintiffs, v Leslie G. Nameth, Defendant. (Action No. 1.) Regina Smith et al., Appellants, v County of Dutchess et al., Respondents. (Action No. 2.)

[807 NYS2d 411]

In two related actions to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Dolan, J.), dated February 14, 2005, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendants in action No. 2 which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in action No. 2.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, that branch of the motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in action No. 2 is denied, and the complaint in action No. 2 is reinstated.

*600Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in entertaining the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, which was made returnable 19 days beyond the deadline fixed by the Supreme Court in its prehminary conference order. The defendants demonstrated good cause for their minor delay by explaining that it was due to the difficulties encountered in obtaining an affidavit from the defendant Ronald Merritt, a bus driver, who had been on continuous medical disability leave from his employment since November 2003. The affidavit was not wholly duplicative of Merritt’s deposition testimony and was necessary to the summary judgment motion *(see Kunz v Gleeson,*9 AD3d 480 [2004]; *cf. Brill v City of New York, 2*NY3d 648 [2004]; *Espejo v Hiro Real Estate Co.,*19 AD3d 360 [2005]).

However, the Supreme Court should not have granted that branch of the motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in action No. 2, since triable issues of fact exist. Goldstein, J.P., Mastro, Spolzino and Lunn, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

John A. Brooks

v. Civil No. 07-411-JD

Kelly A. Ayotte, et al.

PROCEDURAL ORDER

This matter came before me on a Report and Recommendation

(R&R) by Magistrate Judge James Muirhead that a preliminary

injunction issue against the defendants the terms of which

proposed injunction are set forth in paragraphs 1 thru 4 on page

35 of the R&R. The defendants objected to the R&R thereby

joining the issue and making the matter ripe for a de novo review

by me pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and

(C).

After a preliminary review of the case and a telephone

conference with counsel, I met with counsel in chambers to

discuss some of the legal and factual issues surrounding the

request for preliminary injunction and the hearing before the

Magistrate Judge. I encouraged counsel and the parties to step

back from the disputatious atmosphere of the preliminary

injunction hearing and to review their positions from a more

objective perspective with the goal of reaching an agreement that

would resolve their differences.

Case 1:07-cv-00411-JD Document 56 Filed 03/20/08 Page 1 of 2
2

To their credit, counsel and the parties willingly engaged

in good faith discussions over a period of several weeks. After

several more chambers' conferences and with the continued

encouragement of the court, they were able to arrive at a

stipulation which was filed with the court on March 19, 2008,

along with a joint motion to stay these proceedings.

The Joint Motion To Stay the Proceedings is granted. The

proceedings in this case shall be stayed pending a completion of

the pending state criminal charges against the plaintiff, John A.

Brooks, or until further order of this court. The Stipulation of

The Parties is approved. The parties shall be bound by the terms

and conditions as set forth in the stipulation. All pending

motions and objections are terminated subject to being revived on

motion by any party, if necessary, at an appropriate time.

The court commends counsel and the parties for their good

faith efforts and hard work in arriving at the stipulation.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

March 20, 2008

cc: Christopher H.M. Carter, Esquire

Daniel Miville Deschenes, Esquire

Thomas M. Hoopes, Esquire

Laura E. B. Lombardi, Esquire

Martin F. Murphy, Esquire

Dean Richlin, Esquire

Nancy J. Smith, Esquire

Case 1:07-cv-00411-JD Document 56 Filed 03/20/08 Page 2 of 2
DLD-090 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 19-3992

___________

IN RE: RAHMAN R. FULTON,

Petitioner

____________________________________

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

United States District Court for the District of New Jersey

(Related to D.N.J. Crim. No. 2-13-cr-00261 & Civ. No. 2-18-cv-16526)

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 21

January 16, 2020

Before: RESTREPO, PORTER, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: January 27, 2020)

_________

OPINION*

_________

PER CURIAM

Pro se petitioner Rahman Fulton seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the District 

Court to rule on a motion he filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. By order entered on 

January 13, 2020, the District Court denied his motion and declined to issue a certificate 

of appealability. In light of the District Court’s action, Fulton’s mandamus petition no 

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.
2

longer presents a live controversy. Therefore, we will dismiss it as moot. See Blanciak 

v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 77 F.3d 690, 698-99 (3d Cir. 1996) (“If developments occur 

during the course of adjudication that eliminate a plaintiff’s personal stake in the outcome 

of a suit or prevent a court from being able to grant the requested relief, the case must be 

dismissed as moot.”).

If Fulton wishes to seek appellate review of the District Court’s decision with 

respect to his § 2255 motion, he should file a notice of appeal in the District Court within 

the time period set forth in Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                       5,037,000
<SECURITIES>                                 6,712,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                7,491,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   669,000
<INVENTORY>                                    566,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            25,806,000
<PP&E>                                       9,172,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,864,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              93,345,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,734,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    54,236,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  11,529,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                65,765,000
<SALES>                                     22,845,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            22,845,000
<CGS>                                       11,558,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               31,186,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             748,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             36,247,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 9,839,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                26,408,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                       2.41
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.29


</TABLE>
Case 1:08-cv-00089-JL Document 1 Filed 03/10/08 Page 1 of 13
Case 1:08-cv-00089-JL Document 1 Filed 03/10/08 Page 2 of 13
Case 1:08-cv-00089-JL Document 1 Filed 03/10/08 Page 3 of 13
Case 1:08-cv-00089-JL Document 1 Filed 03/10/08 Page 4 of 13
Case 1:08-cv-00089-JL Document 1 Filed 03/10/08 Page 5 of 13
Case 1:08-cv-00089-JL Document 1 Filed 03/10/08 Page 6 of 13
Case 1:08-cv-00089-JL Document 1 Filed 03/10/08 Page 7 of 13
Case 1:08-cv-00089-JL Document 1 Filed 03/10/08 Page 8 of 13
Case 1:08-cv-00089-JL Document 1 Filed 03/10/08 Page 9 of 13
Case 1:08-cv-00089-JL Document 1 Filed 03/10/08 Page 10 of 13
Case 1:08-cv-00089-JL Document 1 Filed 03/10/08 Page 11 of 13
Case 1:08-cv-00089-JL Document 1 Filed 03/10/08 Page 12 of 13
Case 1:08-cv-00089-JL Document 1 Filed 03/10/08 Page 13 of 13