alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-2173

CLARENCE D. JOHNSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

EBENEZER BAPTIST CHURCH; TRIANGE TRANSIT AUTHORITY, (TTA) 

Authority Bus System; BERNADETTE EVANS, Bus Supervisor,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony J. Trenga, 

District Judge. (1:13-cv-00430-AJT-IDD)

Submitted: February 28, 2014 Decided: March 10, 2014

Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Clarence D. Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. John Elphinstone 

McIntosh, Jr., Amanda Murray Schwartz, HUDGINS LAW FIRM, 

Alexandria, Virginia; Michael Earl Barnsback, LECLAIR RYAN, PC, 

Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Clarence D. Johnson appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing his civil complaint. We have reviewed the record and 

Johnson’s informal brief on appeal, and we conclude that this 

appeal is frivolous. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 

325, 327 (1989); Johnson v. Ebenezer Baptist Church, No. 1:13-

cv-00430-AJT-IDD (E.D. Va. Aug. 15, 2013). Accordingly, we

dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012). We 

deny Johnson’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          15,546
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         465,236
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 5,950
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    136,529
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         137,338
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            64,692
<LOANS>                                        396,448
<ALLOWANCE>                                      3,415
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 640,419
<DEPOSITS>                                     493,400
<SHORT-TERM>                                    30,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              6,981
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           905
<OTHER-SE>                                     109,133
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 640,419
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 30,366
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               13,063
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   428
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                43,857
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              19,822
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              21,831
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           22,026
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    1,674
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               2,923
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 13,443
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,789
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      11,789
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,462
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.83
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.83
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.28
<LOANS-NON>                                      4,407
<LOANS-PAST>                                     1,151
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                    48
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  5,912
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 2,901
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    1,317
<RECOVERIES>                                       157
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                3,415
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             3,415
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            192


</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.27  2008
Base Salaries for Named Executive Officers  Name and Title
  
  SalaryJames M. Gower
  
  $
  600,000Chief Executive
  OfficerRyan D. Maynard
  
  $
  300,000Chief Financial
  Officer and Vice PresidentDonald G. Payan
  
  $
  483,000Executive Vice
  President, President of Discovery and ResearchElliot B.
  Grossbard
  
  $
  450,200Executive Vice
  President, Chief Medical OfficerRaul R.
  Rodriguez
  
  $
  430,000Executive Vice
  President, Chief Operating Officer
YzApp International Inc. - Exhibit 10.12 - Prepared By TNT Filings Inc.



  



 

Exhibit 10.12

 (English Translation)




LOAN AGREEMENT 




Heilongjiang Shuaiyi New Energy Development Co. Ltd. 

(hereinafter, known as "Lender") 

Authorized Representatives:


Lianyun, Han

Address to Borrower:    

No.41, Han Guang Street, Nan Gang District, Heilongjiang, Harbin Province, P.R.C.




Daqing Shuaiyi Biotech Co., Ltd.  

(hereinafter, known as "Borrower"). 

Authorized Representatives:


Weihan, Zhang

Address to Lender:


Tie Dong District, Xin Zhan Town, Zhao Yuan County, Da Qin City, Harbin, P.R.C.

 

(Collectively, known herein as "the Parties") 

 

This Agreement (the “Agreement”) is made and entered into as of October 15, 2007 by and between Borrows and Lenders.

 

NOW, WHEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants set forth in this Agreement, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows: 

 

1.

FOR VALUE RECEIVED, Borrower promises to pay to the order of Lender, the sum of RMB 35,000,000  (RMB Thirty-five Million) (hereinafter, the “Loan Amount"). 




2.

The entire outstanding Loan Amount shall become fully due in 5 years ( hereinafter, the “Period”) beginning from October. 15th, 2007  to October. 15th, 2012.  During the period, Borrower should repay to Lender an annual repayment of RMB7,000,000 (RMB Seven Million) upon or before the 30th day of October every year beginning from 2008.  




3.

This Loan Amount is interest free and non-secured. 




4.

This Agreement is made in two (2) originals, which shall be kept by each Party.  Such original set shall be as valid and effectual as if signed and executed by the Parties.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereof have executed their Agreement as of the date first above written.




Lender

Borrower




                                                                    

                                                                    

Signature of Authorized Representative:

Signature of Authorized Representative: 

Date:

Date:
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            9
                    
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000
       
<S>                                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                 JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          25,725
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           3,451
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     54,599
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         267,777
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           268,047
<LOANS>                                        317,855
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,989
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 640,746
<DEPOSITS>                                     460,847
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             10,313
<LONG-TERM>                                     98,359
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           529
<OTHER-SE>                                      70,698
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 640,746
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 12,413
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                9,334
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   534
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                22,281
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               9,320
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,250
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           10,031
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      180
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 188
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  6,726
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,003
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       4,003
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,429
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .60
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .60
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.23
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                     1,933
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,806
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        3
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,983
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,983
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          1,983
        


</TABLE>
#### James HASSELBACK, Appellant, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, Daniel G. Wentz, and Doris Wentz, Appellees.

No. 1D10-1850.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Feb. 28, 2011.

Kenneth G. Oertel and Timothy Perry of Oertel, Fernandez, Cole *&*Bryant, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Greg Munson, General Counsel; Kelly Russell, Senior Assistant General Counsel; and David K. Thulman, Tallahassee, for Appellee Florida Department of Environmental Protection.

Thomas G. Tomasello of Thomas G. To-masello, P.A.; M. Drew Parker and Scott Shirley of Ard, Shirley & Rudolph, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellees Daniel G. and Doris Wentz.

ROBERTS, J.

This is an appeal of a final order of the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). In that order, DEP dismissed as untimely a petition filed by property owner James Hasselback challenging DEP’s issuance of a coastal construction control line permit on an adjacent property. DEP provided written notice of the issuance of the permit to Rick Barnett, another adjacent property owner, and the Oertel Law Firm, which had previously requested notice of any such agency action. The issue before DEP in determining the timeliness of the petition was whether the notice provided to Barnett and the law firm was imputed to Hasselback, thereby rendering the petition untimely. DEP found that the notice was imputed to Hasselback because Barnett was acting as Hasselback’s agent and the law firm was Hasselback’s attorney of record at the time.

DEP’s findings, however, are not supported by competent, substantial evidence in the record. There is no evidence that a principal-agent relationship existed between Hasselback and Barnett at the time of the notice. Barnett’s uncontroverted testimony at the hearing was that he did *638not inform Hasselback of the permit until three years after the notice. There is also no evidence that an attorney-client relationship existed between Hasselback and the law firm at the time of the notice. Hasselback’s uncontroverted testimony at the hearing was that his attorney-client relationship with the law firm ended a little more than a year before the notice. Although the law firm requested notice of any agency action relating to the adjacent property, that request did not reference Hasselback.

Accordingly, we REVERSE and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. *See*§ 120.68(7)(b), Fla. Stat. (2010) (providing that a reviewing court shall remand a case for further proceedings consistent with the court’s decision or set aside agency action if the agency’s action depends on any finding of fact that is not supported by competent, substantial evidence).

PADOVANO and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Quantrell CAGER.

No. 2011-KP-1030.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 14, 2011.

In re Cager, Quantrell; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. G, No. 380-954; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-K-289.

Denied.
No. 87-6536.

#### In re Corley.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
LA JOLLA PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY
Exhibit 32.1




---



##### 



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
  
    
    the Quarterly Report of the Registrant on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September
30, 2009 (the Report), which accompanies this certification, fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition of the Registrant at the end of such quarter and the results
of operations of the Registrant for such quarter.
  /s/ Deirdre Y. GillespieDeirdre Y. Gillespie, M.D.President and Chief Executive Officer/s/ Gail A. SloanGail A. SloanVice President of Finance and Secretary Note:
    
    A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to La
Jolla Pharmaceutical Company and will be retained by La Jolla Pharmaceutical Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Richard PILLAJO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 2D10-4260.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 11, 2011.

PER CURIAM.

Richard Pillajo appeals an order dismissing his motion for postconviction relief *566filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 8.850. We dismiss this appeal because we lack jurisdiction. Neither the dismissal of a motion filed pursuant to rule 3.850 with leave to refile nor the denial of a motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c) is appealable. *See Williams v. State,*884 So.2d 374, 375 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (explaining that dismissing a pleading with leave to amend “renders the order nonfinal and nonap-pealable”); *Riggs v. State,*847 So.2d 1037, 1038 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (explaining that “an order denying a motion to mitigate sentence is not a directly appealable order”).

In its order responding to Pillajo’s rule 3.850 postconviction motion, the court dismissed the motion with leave to refile until the expiration of the two-year timeframe for such motions. Having dismissed Pilla-jo’s motion under rule 3.850, the court then elected to consider it as having been filed as a motion for reduction or modification of sentence pursuant to rule 3.800(c). The court denied Pillajo’s motion under rule 3.800(c), but included language stating that Pillajo could appeal the order within thirty days. Taking the court’s advice, Pillajo did so. Because, the appellate court has no jurisdiction to review the exercise of a trial court’s discretion in ruling on a rule 3.800(c) motion, we dismiss this appeal. In addition, we take this opportunity to encourage the trial courts of this district to excise language concerning appellate rights from their orders on rule 3.800(c) motions.

Dismissed.

SILBERMAN, KELLY, and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.
COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS

SWIFT TRANSPORTATION CO. OF ARIZONA, LLC , Appellant ,

v.
LILIA FAVELA , Appellee

. § § § § § No. 08

- 23

- 00 158

- CV Appeal from the

4 1 st Judicial D istrict Court

o f El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2018

- DCV4882 )

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before this Court is the parties ’ first amended joint motion to dismiss this appeal pursuant

to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(2)

. In the motion, the parties state that they have “satisfactorily compromised and settled all matters in dispute between them.” Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1 provides the actions a court may t ake to dispose of an appeal on the motion of the appellant or by agreement of the parties. On the motion of appellant, the court may dismiss the appeal or affirm the appealed judgment or order. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(1)

. When parties file an agreement signed by all parties or their attorneys, the court may:

“ (A) render judgment effectuating the parties’ agreement; (B) set aside the trial court’s judgment without regard to the merits and remand the case to the trial court for rendition of judgment in2 accordance with the agreement; or (C) abate the appeal and permit proceedings in the trial court to effectuate the agreement.” T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(2) (A)

– (C)

. After reviewing the motion and attached agreement, which has been signed by both parties and their attorneys, we conclude that the substance of the agreement seeks a voluntary dismissal
under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)( 1)

. Therefore, the motion is granted and the appeal is dismissed. Each party shall bear the costs of this appeal pursuant to their agreement and joint motion

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(d)

.

G INA M. PALAFOX , Justice July 2 8 , 2023
Before Rodriguez , C.J., Palafox, and Soto, J.J.
#### STATE ex rel. Leslie JOHNSON v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-0161.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 7, 2011.

In re Johnson, Leslie; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 12-02-0253; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 KW 1721.

Denied.
News United States Air Force
 41 total-force Airmen selected as KC-46 aircrewPublished Nov. 25, 2014
                        
                        By Debbie Gildea
                        
                        
                        Air Force Personnel Center Public Affairs
                **JOINT BASE SAN ANTONIO-RANDOLPH, Texas (AFNS) --**
                Forty-one officers and enlisted members from active duty, Air Force Reserve and the Air National Guard have been selected as KC-46 Pegasus initial operational test and evaluation aircrew, Air Force Personnel Center officials said Nov. 24.
The KC-46 is slated to enter the Air Force inventory, pending the results of operational test and evaluation, in 2016. Developed by Boeing in Mukilteo, Washington, the aircraft is set to replace the KC-135 Stratotanker, which has been actively employed since 1956.
"Test and evaluation aircrew will evaluate the tanker's capabilities under all circumstances and situations to ensure that it meets all operational mission requirements," said Maj. Broc Starrett, an official with the AFPC Mobility Air Forces rated assignments section.
"This is a significant milestone in the careers of the pilots and boom operators selected to test the new tanker," Starrett said. "Airmen selected for test and evaluation positions must be the best in their field, so selection for the program is very competitive. These total-force Airmen will have significant impact on the future of the Air Force mobility mission."
To see the selection list and for information about other personnel issues, go to myPers. Select "search all components" from the drop down menu and enter "KC-46 Initial Operational Test & Evaluation (IOT&E) Aircrew Selection Board Results" in the search window.KC-46 Pegasus 



KC-135 Stratotanker 



AFPC
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet at September 30, 2000 (Unaudited) and the
Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations for the Nine Months Ended
September 30, 2000 (Unaudited) and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          97,151
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,085,282
<ALLOWANCES>                                    79,496
<INVENTORY>                                  1,780,118
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,021,414
<PP&E>                                       4,223,752
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,814,635
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,327,473
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,013,614
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        25,091
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,288,768
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,327,473
<SALES>                                      8,041,410
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,041,410
<CGS>                                        4,185,205
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,185,205
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,117,602
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               139,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              17,663
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (418,060)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (421,060)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (421,060)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.17)


</TABLE>
855 A.2d 757

#### COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. Hans ROS, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Submitted Jan. 13, 2004.

Decided Aug. 18, 2004.

Janna Rae Steinruck, James Jude Karl, for Com. of Pa.

James Arthur Gratton, for Hans Ros.

Before CAPPY, C.J, and CASTILLE, NIGRO, NEWMAN, SAYLOR, BAER, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 18th day of August, 2004, the order of the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas is reversed insofar as it declared the Registration of Sexual Offenders Act unconstitutional, and the case is remanded for further proceedings. *See Commonwealth v. Williams,*574 Pa. 487, 832 A.2d 962 (2003); *Commonwealth v. Maldonado,*576 Pa. 101, 838 A.2d 710 (2003).

Justice EAKIN did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.