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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Balance Sheet at March 31, 1998 (unaudited) and the Consolidated
Statement of Operations for the Three Months Ended March 31, 1998 (unaudited)
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000921112
<NAME> LIBERTY PROPERTY TRUST
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          37,119
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,402
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,151
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                43,521
<PP&E>                                       2,454,661
<DEPRECIATION>                                 165,437
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,406,764
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           25,819
<BONDS>                                      1,158,954
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    120,814
<COMMON>                                            57
<OTHER-SE>                                     936,829
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,406,764
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                82,619
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   21,935
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                17,569
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,566
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 26,549
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             26,549
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    21,990
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.40
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.40
        

</TABLE>
#### METAIRIE III v. POCHÉ CONSTRUCTION, INC. and Markel Insurance Company.

No. 2010-C-2436.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 16, 2011.

In re Labiche Plumbing; — Third Party; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. D, No. 2006-2301; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-CA-0353.

Denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7382 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7382

   To regulate lobbying by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 20, 2018

Mr. Royce of California (for himself and Ms. Velazquez) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial 
                                Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To regulate lobbying by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and for other 
                               purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Lobbying 
Regulation Act of 2018''.

SEC. 2. LIMITATIONS ON LOBBYING ACTIVITY BY FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MAC.

    Part 3 of subtitle A of the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial 
Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 (12 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.) is amended by 
adding at the end the following new section:

``SEC. 1357. LIMITATIONS ON LOBBYING ACTIVITY BY ENTERPRISES.

    ``During any period in which an enterprise is in conservatorship or 
receivership pursuant to section 1367, such enterprise may not engage 
in any activity that would result in such enterprise being a client for 
purposes of section 3(2) of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (2 
U.S.C. 1602(2)).''.
                                 <all>
```
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Layman FOSTER.

No. 2010-KK-1891.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 29, 2010.

In re Foster, Layman; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District *283Court Div. B, No. 488-188; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-K-0521.

Denied.
EXHIBIT
32.2







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 Amended and Restated Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Senesco
Technologies, Inc. for the year ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, the undersigned, Joel Brooks, Chief
Financial Officer and Treasurer, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, that:


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


(2)           The
information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Senesco
Technologies, Inc.




Dated:
      October 28, 2009
              /s/ Joel
  Brooks  *Joel
      BrooksChief
      Financial Officer and Treasurer(principal
      financial and accounting
officer)




*  A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to us and will be retained by us and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk March 8, 2011

0228 

# Order

March 8, 2011

141751

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 141751 COA: 297380 Wayne CC: 92-000779-FC SHAUN SCOTT, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the July 22, 2010 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, a nd it is DENIED, because the defendant has

failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway,

 Justices

Order 

January 27, 2010 

139209 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 139209 

 COA: 281844 

Genesee CC: 01-008582-FC 

ANGELO ROCHELLE MCMULLAN, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 2, 2009 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is GRANTED, limited to the issue 

whether a rational juror could conclude that defendant acted with a “lesser mens rea of 

gross negligence or an intent to injure, and not malice,” People v Holtschlag, 471 Mich 1, 

21-22 (2004), thus warranting an instruction on involuntary manslaughter. 

 We further ORDER the Genesee Circuit Court, in accordance with Administrative 

Order 2003-03, to determine whether the defendant is indigent and, if so, to appoint 

Patrick K. Ehlmann, if feasible, to represent the defendant in this Court. If this 

appointment is not feasible, the trial court shall, within the same time frame, appoint 

other counsel to represent the defendant in this Court. 

 The Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan, the Prosecuting Attorneys 

Association of Michigan, and the Criminal Law Section of the State Bar of Michigan are 

invited to file briefs amicus curiae. Other persons or groups interested in the 

determination of the issue presented in this case may move the Court for permission to 

file briefs amicus curiae. 

 CORRIGAN, J., (concurring). 

 In particular, I would direct the parties to address whether, even crediting 

defendant’s version of events, the facts inescapably show that he acted with malice 

because, at a minimum, he “inten[ded] to do an act in wanton and wilful disregard of the 
I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

January 27, 2010 

p0120 

 

2

likelihood that the natural tendency of [his] behavior is to cause death or great bodily 

harm.” People v Goecke, 457 Mich 442, 464 (1998). Defendant admitted that, after a 

physical altercation with the victim, defendant left to obtain a loaded gun in order to 

threaten or scare the victim. He further testified that after he returned, the victim was 

shot in the chest when he and the victim again began to struggle. He does not dispute 

that the gun was in his hand when it was cocked and then fired, and the evidence further 

established that this firearm had to be specifically cocked in order to fire. Under these 

circumstances, I would ask the parties to address whether, as a matter of law, defendant’s 

assertion that he did not actually intend to kill the victim could preclude a finding of 

malice. 

 YOUNG, J., joins the statement of CORRIGAN, J.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A20A0779. MATTHEW DONALD SHIELDS v. THE STATE.

Matthew Donald Shields pled guilty to enticing a child for indent purposes and

incest. Following the revocation of his probation in September 2016, Shields filed a

motion to modify his probated sentence. The trial court denied the motion, and

Shields filed a motion for reconsideration. The trial court denied the motion for

reconsideration, and Shields filed this direct appeal.

1

 We lack jurisdiction. 

“In determining the proper procedure to follow in pursuing an appeal, the

underlying subject matter generally controls over the relief sought.” Self v. Bayneum,

265 Ga. 14, 14-15 (453 SE2d 27) (1995). Because the underlying subject matter of

this appeal isthe revocation of Shields’s probation, compliance with the discretionary

application procedures is required. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (5), (b); Todd v. State,

236 Ga. App. 757, 758 (513 SE2d 287) (1999); White v. State, 233 Ga. App. 873, 874

(505 SE2d 228) (1998).

Furthermore, an order denying a motion for reconsideration is not appealable

in its own right. Savage v. Newsome, 173 Ga. App. 271 (326 SE2d 5) (1985); see also

Bell v. Cohran, 244 Ga. App. 510, 511 (536 SE2d 187) (2000). Nor did the motion

for reconsideration extend the time for filing a challenge to the 2016 revocation order.

See Bell v. Cohran, supra.

1 Shields appealed to the Supreme Court, which transferred the case to this

Court. See Case No. S20A0172, transferred Sept. 25, 2019.

January 09, 2020
For these reasons, we lack jurisdiction to consider this appeal, which is hereby

DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

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.

01/09/2020
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 191 (Monday, October 4, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 61126]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-24834]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration


Virginia Commonwealth University, School of Medicine; Notice of 
Decision on Applications for Duty-Free Entry of Scientific Instruments

    This is a decision pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, 
Scientific, and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-
651, as amended by Public Law 106-36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301). 
Related records can be viewed between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. in Room 
3720, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Ave, NW., 
Washington, DC.
    Docket Number: 10-022. Applicant: Virginia Commonwealth University, 
School of Medicine, Richmond, VA 23298-0551. Instrument: Electron 
Microscope. Manufacturer: FEI Company, the Netherlands. Intended Use: 
See notice at 75 FR 53271, August 31, 2010. Comments: None received. 
Decision: Approved. Reasons: The instrument will be used to investigate 
the three dimensional structure of biological macromolecules, which 
will be observed under cryogenic conditions. We know of no instruments 
of equivalent scientific value to the foreign instruments described 
above, for such purposes as this is intended to be used, that was being 
manufactured in the United States at the time of its order.

    Dated: September 28, 2010.
Gregory W. Campbell,
Acting Director, Subsidies Enforcement Office, Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-24834 Filed 10-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

LINDON CAMPBELL,

Appellant,

v.

ALLY FINANCIAL INC. f/k/a GMAC,

Appellee.

No. 4D21-58

[November 17, 2022]

Appeal from the County Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Ellen Feld, Judge; L.T. Case Nos. COWE17-013256 and 

CACE19-12233.

Lindon Campbell, Coral Springs, pro se.

Christina V. Paradowski of Tripp Scott, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for 

appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CIKLIN, LEVINE and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
ex_309868.htm


Exhibit 10.1


 


 


9th November, 2021


 


Dear Sirs,


 


Letter of Variation


 


We refer to the Credit Agreement dated 4th October 2019 between


 


The Coretec Group Inc (Borrower)


 


and


 


Diversified Alpha Fund Segregated Portfolio, Navigator Global Fund Manager Platform SPC


(Lender) 


 


We are writing to inform you that with effect from 1st October 2021 your request to modify the terms and conditions of the repayment has been accepted.


As a result form 1st October 2021 The Coretec Group will not need to repay of the sums advance over a period of 36 months with the first payment due on the 15th day of the 13th month after the advance but capital will be repaid on the 15th day of the 4th anniversary of the advance made available.


 


 


	 	Payment Date	 	Amount Outstanding	Repayment date
	
			Tranche 6

				
			06-March-2020

				 	
			USD 

				67,741.80	
			15-March-2024

			
	
			Tranche 7

				
			17-April-2020

				 	
			USD 

				150,694.44	
			15-April-2024

			
	
			Tranche 8

				
			22-June-2020

				 	
			USD 

				160,416.67	
			15-June-2024

			
	
			Tranche 9

				
			24-August-2020

				 	
			USD 

				97,222.22	
			15-August-2024

			
	
			Tranche 10

				
			21-September-2020

				 	
			USD 

				175,000.00	
			15-September-2024

			
	
			Tranche 11

				
			06-October-2020

				 	
			USD 

				175,000.00	
			15-October-2024

			
	
			Tranche 12

				
			19-November-2020

				 	
			USD 

				175,000.00	
			15-November-2024

			
	
			Tranche 13

				
			14-January-2021

				 	
			USD 

				120,000.00	
			15-January-2025

			
	
			Tranche 14

				
			14-January-2021

				 	
			USD 

				225,000.00	
			15-February-2025

			



 





 










 








 





 


 


 


 


 


Signed by Matthew Hoffman for and on behalf of The Coretec Group Inc


 





 


16th November 2021


 


 


 


 


 


Signed by Matthew Brown for and on behalf of Navigator Global Manager 


Platform SPC obo Diversified Alpha Fund Segregated Portfolio 


 





 


 


 


 


Date: 19th October 2021
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-26-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-26-1997
<CASH>                                         684,348
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               18,062,239
<ALLOWANCES>                                   474,559
<INVENTORY>                                 20,053,108
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            41,813,289
<PP&E>                                      50,405,033
<DEPRECIATION>                              24,029,369
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             108,200,759
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       18,481,110
<BONDS>                                     54,770,091
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                 13,739,849
<COMMON>                                        58,650
<OTHER-SE>                                  22,456,228
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               108,200,759
<SALES>                                     30,162,073
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            30,213,468
<CGS>                                       23,153,257
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               23,153,257
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             6,173,052
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             983,152
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (95,993)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (40,832)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (55,161)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (55,161)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.05)
        


</TABLE>
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 11

INTERIORS, INC.
COMPUTATION OF WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES
FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                (000)             (000)           (000)           (000)
                                                                COMMON         SHARES VS.       WEIGHTED        WEIGHTED
                                                                A & B           NOTE REC.         BASIC          DILUTED
<S>                                                              <C>                <C>           <C>             <C>  
Total issued at June 30, 1998                                    21,720
Escrow shares at June 30, 1998                                   (8,750)
Shares vs. Note Receivable at June 30, 1998                        (980)
                                                                -------

Basic Common A & B shares for EPS at June 30, 1998               11,990             980           9,050           9,050

Additional Basic Shares                                           3,225                             417             417
Additional Shares vs. Note Receivable
Stock options and warrants                                                                                          912
                                                                -------------------------------------------------------

Basic Common A& B shares for EPS at September 30, 1998           15,215             980           9,467          10,379
                                                                                                  =====          ======

Shares vs. Note Receivable at September 30, 1998                    980
Escrow shares at September 30, 1998                              13,750
                                                                =======
Total issued September 30, 1998                                  29,945
                                                                =======
</TABLE>
EXHIBIT No. 32.1

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

I, Gerald E. Sklar, Chief Executive Officer of Winmax Trading Group, Inc.,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge;

1.    The Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2005
      fully complies with the requirements 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 financial condition and results of operations of Winmax
      Trading Group, Inc.






                                                /s/ Gerald E. Sklar
                                                ----------------------------
                                                Gerald E. Sklar
                                                Chief Executive Officer
                                                Dated: June 23, 2006
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

LORENZO BELL,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 19

- 30125

D.C. No. 2:18

- cr

- 00261

- JCC

- 1

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

John C. Coughenour, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 4, 2020 * *

Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

Lorenzo Bell appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his

guilty

- plea conviction and 36

- month sentence for possession of cocaine base with

intent to distribute , in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C)

. Pursuant to

Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Bell ’s counsel has filed a brief stating

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

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

# FILED

FEB 7 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 19

- 30125

that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of

record. Bell has filed a pro se supplemental brief . No answering brief ha s been

filed.

Bell waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence. Our

independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80

(1988), discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the waiver. See United

States v. Watso n , 582 F.3d 974, 986

- 88 (9th Cir. 2009). We accordingly dismiss

the appeal. See id. at 988.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. Bell’s pro se motion to

appoint counsel is DENIED.

DISMISSED.