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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM BALANCE
SHEET & STATEMENT OF INCOME 6-30-00 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         233,756
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,390,316
<ALLOWANCES>                                   141,897
<INVENTORY>                                  4,038,845
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,030,663
<PP&E>                                       4,646,275
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,308,351
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,595,581
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,479,916
<BONDS>                                      2,073,894
<COMMON>                                     2,337,851
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,447,313
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,595,581
<SALES>                                     15,173,050
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            15,173,050
<CGS>                                        8,894,080
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,894,080
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                36,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             401,303
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                180,891
<INCOME-TAX>                                   144,981
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             35,910
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    35,910
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
March 24, 2000

Ms. Elsie L. Rose
Rose, Sanderson, & Creasy, LLC
1051 Technology Park Drive
Glen Allen, VA 23060

Envirometrics, Inc.
9229 University Boulevard
Charleston, SC  29401

     Re: 2,250 Shares of Series B Preferred  Stock of  Envirometrics,  Inc. (the
"Company") Held By Elsie L. Rose.

Ladies and Gentlemen:

     Pursuant to our Agreement of June 30, 1998, (the  "Agreement,")  Paragraphs
     10-24 of which are fully incorporated  herein by reference and ratified and
     reaffirmed in their entirety by the  undersigned),  we hereby notify you of
     our intent to convert the  above-referenced  shares of Preferred Stock (the
     "Preferred Stock") to Envirometrics  Common Stock (the "Common Stock") at a
     ratio of 5 shares of Common Stock for one share of Preferred Stock.  Kindly
     effect this  conversion  on the tenth day  following  your  receipt of this
     notice or as soon thereafter as practicable.

We are enclosing  herewith any Certificate(s) we hold representing the Preferred
Stock. If you are holding any  Certificate(s)  representing the Preferred Stock,
you are hereby  instructed  to cancel same upon the issuance of the Common Stock
to us.

With regard to any dividends which have accrued on the Preferred  Stock, you are
hereby  instructed  to issue  Common  Stock to us in lieu of such  accruals at a
price of $0.40 per  share.  We  understand  that no  fractional  shares  will be
issued, and shares will be rounded off to the nearest whole number.

We represent  that: (a) we have  familiarized  ourselves with the affairs of the
Company,  and we are  aware of the  Agreement  for the  Exchange  of Stock  (the
"Catapult  Agreement")  between  the  Company and The  Catapult  Group,  Inc. of
Atlanta,  GA; (b) we have  received and  reviewed a copy of the  Catapult  press
release dated March 13, 2000 which refers to the Catapult Agreement;  and (c) we
are aware that the Company  intends to effect a split of the Common  Stock prior
to the closing of the  Catapult  Agreement at a ratio of one new share of Common
Stock being issued for every ten shares then outstanding.


Sincerely yours,
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1



                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



The Board of Directors
Golden Cycle Gold Corporation:


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No.
33-47877 and 333-12245) on Form S-3 and (Nos. 33-62952 and 333-26975) on Form
S-8 of Golden Cycle Gold Corporation of our report dated March 8, 2002, with
respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Golden Cycle Gold Corporation and
subsidiary as of December 31, 2001 and 2000, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, stockholders' equity and cash flows, for each of the
years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2001, which report appears in
the December 31, 2001, annual report on Form 10-K of Golden Cycle Gold
Corporation.





                                    KPMG LLP



Denver, Colorado
March 29, 2002
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA
F OURTH D ISTRICT

R.W., the father and M.A., the mother

, Appellant s ,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES , Appellee

.

No s . 4D 17

- 483

a nd 4D17

- 613

[ July 14, 2017 ]

Consolidated a ppeal s from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Stacey Schulman , Judge; L.T. Case No. 2014

- 670 CJ

- DP

.

Albert W. Guffanti of Albert W. Guffanti, P.A., Miami, for appell ant
, R.W., the father.

Ro ger Ally of Roger Ally, P.A., Fo rt Lauderdale, for appellant, M.A., the mother.

Pamela J. Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Carolyn Schwarz, Assistant Attorney General, Fort Lauderdale., for appellee.

Laura J. Lee, Appellate Counsel, Sanford, for Guardian Ad Litem Program.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed

.

G ROSS , M AY and F ORST , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### State of Nebraska, appellee, v. Michael Ryan, appellant.

560 N.W.2d 122

Order filed January 15, 1997.

No. S-86-946.

This matter came on for hearing this 15th day of January, 1997, upon the supplemented motion of the plaintiff-appellee, State of Nebraska, to establish an execution date, and the resistance thereto and motion for sanctions of the defendant-appellant, Michael Ryan.

With respect to the State’s motion for the establishment of an execution date, it appears that there is presently pending in the district court for Richardson County, at docket 7 page 41, case No. 2390, Ryan’s motion to vacate his conviction and sentence, filed pursuant to the provisions of Nebraska’s postconviction statutes, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3001 through 29-3004 (Reissue 1995), which motion raises issues grounded in provisions of the Constitution of the United States. Notwithstanding the State’s assertions, and irrespective of the number of successive filings permitted under the scheme of postconviction review created by the Nebraska Legislature in §§ 29-3001 through 29-3004, this court cannot ignore its obligation to uphold the Constitution of the United States, and therefore cannot establish an execution date in the face of unresolved federal constitutional questions. See *Victor*v. Hopkins, 90 F.3d 276 (8th Cir. 1996).

With respect to Ryan’s motion for sanctions, notwithstanding that the foregoing conclusion concerning the State’s motion for the establishment of an execution date was predictable, we have prior to this date specifically held only that it was inappropriate for the State to move for the setting of an execution date while a federal stay was pending. *State*v. *Joubert,*246 Neb. 287, 518 N.W.2d 887 (1994).

WHEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED THAT:

(1) The State’s motion for the establishment of an execution date be, and the same hereby is, overruled, without prejudice to its refiling at an appropriate future time; and

(2) Ryan’s motion for sanctions be, and the same hereby is, overruled.

*957DATED AT LINCOLN, NEBRASKA, the day, month, and year first above written.

BY THE COURT

/s/ C Thomas White. Chief Justice
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions that

have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on

the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless

expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession."

Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion

should not be published.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-30124

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

MICHAEL FELTON,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Eastern District of Louisiana

(CR-92-33-I)

November 16, 1995

Before GARWOOD, WIENER and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

Per curiam:*

A jury convicted Appellant, Michael Felton (Felton) of

conspiracy to possess and pass counterfeit notes, possession of

counterfeit notes, and conspiracy to distribute marijuana. At

sentencing, Felton unsuccessfully objected to increases in his
offense level for obstruction of justice and the quantity of drugs

involved. This Court affirmed the convictions on direct appeal,

but determined that Felton should not have been sentenced as

a career offender. We then vacated Felton's 262-month sentence and

remanded for resentencing. United States v. Wallace, 32 F.3d 921,

931 (5th Cir. 1994). We found it unnecessary to address Felton's

challenges to his offense level, but noted that we would not

reverse the district court's finding absent clear error. Id. at

931 n.13. 

Without the career offender enhancement, Felton's guidelines

sentencing range was 77 to 96 months. On resentencing, the

district court again rejected Felton's arguments concerning the

quantity of drugs and the obstruction of justice enhancement,

readopted its original factual determinations, and sentenced Felton

to a total term of ninety months. Felton argues both sentencing

issues on appeal. 

We have reviewed the record and the trial court's factual

determinations concerning the quantity of drugs and Felton's

obstruction of justice. Because we find that the trial court's

findings on these issues were not clearly erroneous, we AFFIRM.

AFFIRMED.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 17-40802

LEWIS-JAY PORTER,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

STATE OF TEXAS, 101 West Main Street, Suite 250, Nacogdoches, Texas 

75861, doing business as Carrie Gilcrease,

Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 9:17-CV-75

Before DENNIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Lewis-Jay Porter, Texas prisoner # 01865394, was convicted in Texas 

state court for aggravated sexual assault of a child. He has filed what is best 

construed as a motion for a certificate of appealability (COA). Porter’s 

arguments appear to be based on his adherence to the so-called “sovereign 

citizen” ideology. “The sovereign citizen movement is a loose grouping of 

litigants, commentators, and tax protesters who often take the position that 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 3, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-40802 Document: 00514539145 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/03/2018
No. 17-40802

2

they are not subject to state or federal statutes and proceedings.” United States 

v. Weast, 811 F.3d 743, 746 n.5 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 126 (2016). 

This court may issue a COA only if Porter has “made a substantial 

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To 

satisfy this requirement, Porter must demonstrate that reasonable jurists 

could disagree with the district court’s resolution of his constitutional claims 

or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to 

proceed further. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003); Slack v. 

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

The district court did not rule on whether a COA should issue. Because 

the district court did not do so, we may assume without deciding that we lack 

jurisdiction. See Cardenas v. Thaler, 651 F.3d 442, 443-44 (5th Cir. 2011); Rule 

11(a), RULES GOVERNING § 2254 CASES. However, we decline to remand in 

order for the district court to make the COA determination in the first instance 

because remand would be futile. See United States v. Alvarez, 210 F.3d 309, 

310 (5th Cir. 2000). Even if the district court had made the determination in 

the first instance, we would still deny a COA because Porter has not made the 

required showing. See Slack, 529 U.S. at 484.

Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction, and 

Porter’s constructive motion for COA is DENIED AS MOOT. 

 Case: 17-40802 Document: 00514539145 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/03/2018
### The Honorable David S. Doty, United State s District Judge for 1 

### the District of Minnesota, ado pting the report and recommendations of t he Honorable Jonathan G. Lebedoff, United States Magistrat e Judge for the District of Minnesota. ___________ No. 95-4202

___________ Ronaldo S. Ligons, * * Appellant, * * v. * * Appeal from the United States Frank W. Wood; James H. Bruton; * District Court for the Erik William Skon; Thomas Dowdle;* District of Minnesota Charles H. Jakway; Otis Zanders; * James Zawacki; David Oelrich; * [UNPUBLISHED] John Does; Mary Roes, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: May 30, 1996 Filed: June 5, 1996

___________ Before McMILLIAN, WOLLMAN and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.
Ronaldo S. Ligons appeals the district court's dismissal wit h 1 prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. Having carefully reviewed th e reco rd and the parties' briefs, we conclude that the judgment of th e district court was correct. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of th e district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We deny L igons's motions on appeal.
A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Lewis T. Babcock, Judge

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02652-LTB-BNB

OAKLAND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., 

Plaintiff,

v.

THE PHOENIX INSURANCE COMPANY, a Connecticut insurance company; THE

TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF AMERICA, a Connecticut Insurance Company;

ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Connecticut insurance company;

ST. PAUL SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY, a Connecticut insurance company;

TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA, a Connecticut insurance

company; EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a New Jersey insurance

company; and AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL SPECIALTY LINES INSURANCE

COMPANY, a New Jersey insurance company,

Defendants. ______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER ______________________________________________________________________________

As further set forth on the record at the hearing held on August 8, 2013, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED as follows:

1. Judgment is entered in favor of Everest on Travelers’ cross-claim for negligence;

2. All pending motions [Doc #s 154, 157, 159, 160, 161, 164, 195, 220 & 224] are

hereby STRICKEN WITH LEAVE TO RE-FILE subject to the following conditions;

a. motions and supporting memoranda shall not exceed 20 pages in length;

b. responses shall not exceed 15 pages in length;

c. replies shall not exceed 15 pages in length; and 

d. Travelers and Everest shall jointly brief the choice of law issue.

3. Any motion that the parties wish to re-file subject to the conditions set forth above is

due on or before August 29, 2013; responses are due on or before September 12, 2013; and

replies are due on or before September 26, 2013;

4. The trial preparation conference set for September 6, 2013 is VACATED; and 

Case 1:11-cv-02652-LTB-BNB Document 233 Filed 08/08/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
-2-

5. The trial set to commence on October 7, 2013 is VACATED.

Dated: August 8 , 2013, in Denver, Colorado.

BY THE COURT:

 s/ Lewis T. Babcock 

LEWIS T. BABCOCK, JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-02652-LTB-BNB Document 233 Filed 08/08/13 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
| Skip to Content*Release Date: March 10, 2005*Release dates |  Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB)**L.5 Total Liabilities and Its Relation to Total Financial Assets** |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, May 23, 2017. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, May 23, 2017 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A17I0221. RUFUS ARTIS RICKS, JR. v. INGLES MARKETS, INC. et al. .
Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 15HV155
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

RAIN ILLARRAMENDI, §

No. 08-14-00057-CV

Appellant, §

Appeal from the

v. §

243rd Judicial District Court

§

ECHOSTAR, ECHOSPHERE, L.L.C., 

ECHOSTAR TECHNOLOGIES L.L.C., 

ECHOSTAR SATELLITE L.L.C. 

N/K/A DISH NETWORK L.L.C., AND 

DISH NETWORK SERVICES L.L.C.

§

§

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2010-2007)

§

Appellees.

§

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the agreed motion to dismiss appeal and 

concludes the motion should be granted and the appeal should be dismissed, in accordance with 

the opinion of this Court. We therefore dismiss the appeal. Costs of the appeal are taxed against 

the party incurring them. We further order that this decision be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER, 2014.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, J., and Barajas, C.J. (Senior Judge)

Barajas, C.J. (Senior Judge, sitting by assignment)
-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02307-WYD-KMT

JULIO ALVAREZ-CORTEZ;

LORENZA MORALES-ALVAREZ, individually and as next friend of H G-T, a minor and

V G-T, a minor; and

EMMANUEL RUIZ,

Plaintiffs,

v.

LOU VALLARIO, Garfield County Sheriff, in his individual capacity;

DOES 1-3, Garfield County deputy sheriffs, in their individual capacities;

ALVARO AGON, a Carbondale police officer, in his individual capacity;

STEVE TURZA, an ICE agent, in his individual capacity; and

CHRIS CARTER, an ICE agent, in his individual capacity,

Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER 

ORDER ENTERED BY CHIEF JUDGE WILEY Y. DANIEL

Upon review of the Stipulation for Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice as to

Defendant Alvaro Agon filed on November 18, 2011 [ECF No. 21], Defendant Agon’s

Motion for Summary Judgment, filed October 21, 2011 [ECF No. 12] and his Motion to

Stay, filed October 21, 2011 [ECF No. 13] are DENIED AS MOOT. 

Dated: November 18, 2011.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Special Emphasis Panel “Joint Program”                    

*Date:*                         October 15, 2008                    

*Time:*                         10 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, 6100 Executive Boulevard, Room 5B01, Rockville, MD 20852. (Telephone Conference Call)                    

*Contact Person:*                         Norman Chang, Ph.D., Scientific Review Administrator, Division of Scientific Review, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, 6100 Executive Blvd., Room 5B01, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 496-1485,                         *changn@mail.nih.gov.*

This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: September 30, 2008.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

 [FR Doc. E8-23585 Filed 10-3-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
Exhibit 32.1

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                       AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of The Heritage Organization, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending February 28, 2005 (the
"Report"), I, Vickie Walker, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1) The Report fully complies with the requirement of Section 13(a) or 15 (d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the Company's financial position and results of operations.





/s/ Vickie Walker
-----------------
Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer



June 15, 2005