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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1999
<CASH>                                       2,193,989
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,604,660
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     34,721
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,879,196
<PP&E>                                       6,703,919
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,768,621
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,889,341
<BONDS>                                        928,206
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,607
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,594,841
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,768,621
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,652,778
<CGS>                                          198,763
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,060,235
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              62,898
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,330,882
<INCOME-TAX>                                   414,195
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            916,687
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   807,006
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0.245
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.232
        

</TABLE>
| 1)     |   | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and 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 the Company. |

|                |   |                                                                                   |   |
|---------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Dated: May 13, 2011 | By:    | /s/Jay Gottlieb                                                                        |   |
|                |   | Jay Gottlieb                                                                           |   |
|                |   | Chairman of the Board, President, Secretary, Treasurer and Principal Executive Officer |   |
No. 62.

#### Thomas Garner *et al.*plaintiffs in error, *vs.*James J. Keaton, defendant.

[1.] Whether or not the bill of exceptions states with sufficient certainty the errors complained of, is a question to be decided upon hearing the merits, and not upon a motion to dismiss — when it will be necessary for the Court to look into the merits, in order to decide the^motion.j

Counsel for defendant joined issue, *protestando,*on the following grounds:

1st. Because the bill of exceptions is uncertain and insufficient, in specifying the points of error and the grounds of error, in this, to wit: that *all*the errors there complained of, are matters of practice in the discretion of the Circuit Judge, and this Court cannot pass upon the exercise of that discretion, unless the bill of exceptions shall show the ground, or the special cause shown, upon which the Court founded its decisions.

2d. Because the error of the Court complained of, in not allowing a certain amendment, is not specified in the bill of exceptions ; as the amendment being refused is no part of the *431record, and there is nothing in the bill of exceptions, to show *what*was the amendment which was refused.

Lyon & Clark, for the motion. '

Benning, *contra.*

*Per Curiam.*

Starnes, J.

delivering the opinion.

[1.] This is an objection of which the defendant can have the benefit at the hearing, upon the merits.

If the uncertainty complained of can be made certain by the record, we will so make it. We prefer not now to pause for an examination of the record; but, if after hearing the case, we find that we cannot ascertain from the record what was the amendment referred to by the bill of exceptions, we must, of course, affirm the judgment.

Let the case proceed.
584 A.2d 240

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ANTHONY MICHAEL BAGGIO.

June 11, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-6793

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

NAPOLEON GOODSON, IV,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge.

(CR-93-471, CA-00-1517-3-19)

Submitted: September 20, 2001 Decided: September 26, 2001

Before LUTTIG, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Napoleon Goodson, IV, Appellant Pro Se. Mark C. Moore, Assistant

United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Napoleon Goodson, IV, seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find

no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. United States v. Goodson, Nos. CR-93-471; CA-00-1517-3-19

(D.S.C. filed Mar. 30, 2001; entered Apr. 3, 2001 and Apr. 4,

2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D20-0861

_____________________________

JOSEPH HERRING,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Liberty County.

Robert R. Wheeler, Judge.

September 28, 2022

LONG, J.

Following his admission to multiple violations of his 

probation, Herring now appeals the revocation of his probation and 

resulting sentence. He asserts that the trial court erred by relying 

on impermissible considerations in revoking probation and 

imposing the sentence. We affirm. 

After completing his prison sentence for a DUI manslaughter 

conviction, Herring was released in 2017 and began a four-year 

probation term. Herring then violated his probation by failing to 

report to his probation officer and testing positive for illegal drugs. 

Herring then entered a written admission, acknowledging that he 

willfully violated the terms of his probation. At the probation 

violation hearing, the court found that the nature of Herring’s 
2

violations demonstrated he “was not a good candidate for 

probation.”

Even where a defendant enters an admission, he can still 

challenge a sentencing error if properly preserved. Herring argues 

there was a sentencing error; but his claim is not preserved. 

Sentencing errors may not be raised on appeal unless the appellant 

objected to the error at the time of sentencing or timely filed a 

motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b). Fla. R. 

App. P. 9.140(e); see also Jackson v. State, 983 So. 2d 562, 565 (Fla. 

2008). Herring did neither. 

Nevertheless, Herring’s primary argument is to quibble with 

the trial court’s characterization of his violations as “blatant.” 

Herring claims there is not sufficient evidence to support this 

finding and that the court must have relied on some impermissible 

considerations in reaching it. But this is not a legal finding at all. 

It is not required for the revocation, or the sentence imposed. It is 

a passing comment explaining the court’s general evaluation and 

perception of the case. And the comment was not out of the blue—

it came after Herring admitted to intentionally violating his 

probation by using illegal drugs and failing to contact his probation 

officer for an extended period. This was far from error. We reject 

Herring’s additional arguments without further discussion. 

AFFIRMED.

RAY and NORDBY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Glen P. Gifford, Assistant 

Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
3

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Jovona I. Parker, Assistant 

Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JOHN DOUGLAS.

November 17, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6763

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DERRICK TYRONE HATFIELD,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, 

Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:99-cr-00068-WO-1)

Submitted: September 24, 2013 Decided: October 2, 2013

Before WILKINSON and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Derrick Tyrone Hatfield, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa Blue Boggs, 

Robert Michael Hamilton, Assistant United States Attorneys, 

Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Derrick Tyrone Hatfield appeals the district court’s 

order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for 

reduction of sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. United States v. Hatfield, No. 1:99-cr00068-WO-1 (M.D.N.C. Jan. 24, 2013). 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.

AFFIRMED
584 A.2d 233

#### ROBERT MARAS v. LAKEWOOD TOWNSHIP.

May 30, 1990.

Cross-petition for certification denied.
Exhibit 4.2


 


Consent of Independent Registered Public
Accounting Firm


We have issued our report
dated December 10, 2021, with respect to the financial statement of Advisors Disciplined Trust 2100 contained in Amendment No. 1 to the
Registration Statement on Form S-6 (File No. 333-259541) and related Prospectus. We consent to the use of the aforementioned report in
the Registration Statement and Prospectus, and to the use of our name as it appears under the caption “Experts”.


 


/s/ Grant
Thornton LLP


 


Chicago, Illinois


December 10, 2021
|     1) |   | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and 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 the Company. |

| Date: May 17, 2010                                                                                                                                                                                                     |   |   |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                   |   |   |
| /s/ Jay Gottlieb                                  |   |   |
| Jay Gottlieb                                                                                                                                                                                                      |   |   |
| Chairman of the Board, President, Secretary, Treasurer and Principal Executive Officer                                                                                                                                 |   |   |
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                   |
Mr. Spencer:

I am writing on behalf of the Department of the Treasury, Office of the General 

Counsel, General Law, Ethics and Regulation, to provide this office’s position on 

the Merit Systems Protection Board’s Proposed Rule published at 79 FR 18658. 

We are generally supportive of the changes to the regulations contained in the 

proposed rule. However, we continue to recommend that the Board also include 

a procedure under which the MSPB would not be required to hold an evidentiary 

hearing on matters on which the appellant bears the burden of proof when there 

is no genuine issue of material fact to be resolved. Such a procedure was 

included in Option C of the four alternative regulatory changes that the MSPB 

published for public comment on November 8, 2013. 

Thank you for considering our views in this matter.

Gregg S. Avitabile

Attorney-Advisor

U.S. Department of the Treasury

Office of General Counsel (General Law, Ethics & Regulation)

1500 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W. , Room 2024A

Washington, D.C. 20220
585 A.2d 405

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. GERMAN F. JIMENEZ.

October 30, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 200 (Monday, October 18, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63843-63844]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-26183]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; 
Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National 
Institute of

[[Page 63844]]

Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel, 
October 13, 2010, 7 p.m. to October 14, 2010, 5 p.m., Radisson National 
Airport, 2020 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202 which was 
published in the Federal Register on September 16, 2010, 179 FR 56551.
    The meeting location has changed. The meeting will be held at the 
Hilton Crystal City at Washington Reagan National Airport, 2399 
Jefferson Davis Highway in Arlington, VA 22202. The meeting is closed 
to the public.

    Dated: October 7, 2010.
Jennifer S. Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-26183 Filed 10-15-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. WILLIAM B. DORITY.

November 17, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
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. App.), 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 contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable materials, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Special Emphasis Panel, Medicinal Chemistry.                    

*Date:*                         November 9-10, 2010.                    

*Time:*                         8 a.m. to 5 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate contract proposals.                              ( print page 64316)    

*Place:*                         Hotel Palomar, 117 South 17th Street, Philadelphia, PA.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Phillip F. Wiethorn, Scientific Review Administrator, DHHS/NIH/NINDS/DER/SRB, 6001 Executive Boulevard, MSC 9529, Neuroscience Center, Room 3203, Bethesda, MD 20892-9529. 301-496-5388.                         *wiethorp@ninds.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.853, Clinical Research Related to Neurological Disorders; 93.854, Biological Basis Research in the Neurosciences, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: October 13, 2010.

Jennifer S. Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2010-26320 Filed 10-18-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-50627

consolidated with

No. 20-50631

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Rosalio Barraza-Soto, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 4:19-CR-831-1 

USDC No. 4:20-CR-55-1 

Before Davis, Stewart, and Dennis, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Rosalio Barraza-Soto appeals the 24-month within-guidelines 

sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry after 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 23, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-50627 Document: 00515754644 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/23/2021
No. Error! Reference source not found.

c/w No. 20-50631

2

removal from the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He also 

appeals the concomitant revocation of his supervised release related to his 

prior conviction for illegal reentry.

Raising one issue on appeal, Barraza-Soto argues that his new illegal 

reentry sentence, imposed under § 1326(b)(1), violates his due process rights 

by exceeding the two-year statutory maximum set forth in § 1326(a) because 

the indictment did not allege a prior conviction necessary for the § 1326(b)(1) 

enhancement. He concedes that this argument is foreclosed by AlmendarezTorres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 226-27 (1998), but he seeks to preserve 

the issue for further review. The Government filed an unopposed motion for 

summary affirmance, agreeing that the issue is foreclosed and, in the 

alternative, a motion for an extension of time to file a brief.

As the Government argues, and Barraza-Soto concedes, the sole issue 

raised on appeal is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres. See United States v. 

Wallace, 759 F.3d 486, 497 (5th Cir. 2014); United States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 

492 F.3d 624, 625-26 (5th Cir. 2007). Because the issue is foreclosed, 

summary affirmance is appropriate. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 

F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969).

Although the appeals of Barraza-Soto’s illegal reentry conviction and 

supervised release revocation were consolidated, he does not address the 

revocation in his appellate brief. Consequently, he has abandoned any 

challenge to the revocation or revocation sentence. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 

F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).

Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is 

GRANTED, and the judgments of the district court are AFFIRMED. 

The Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief 

is DENIED as moot.

Case: 20-50627 Document: 00515754644 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/23/2021
# Developing a Training Plan

More in This Section		

Close

          -  Training Plan Advisor & Online Plan Submission 
          -  MSHA Program Policy Manual 
          -  Part 46 Training Plan Starter Kit 
          -  Part 46 Training Plan Guide 

*The following resources may be useful in developing training plans for Part 46 and Part 48 mines. If this is your first time creating a training plan, we highly recommend getting in touch with Educational Field and Small Mine Services for assistance. You can also review the current regulations set forth in 30 CFR Part 46 and Part 48. The official regulations outline the required components of an approved training plan, the types of training programs that must be included in a plan, and appropriate record-keeping procedures.*

## Training Plan Advisor & Online Plan Submission

Provides guidance in developing federally required training plans for Part 46 and Part 48 mines, and allows plans to be submitted online.

*The use of the eTPA is voluntary and meant to assist operators with the development of their training plans.

Contact information for additional assistance

MSHA’s Helpdesk:  (877) 778-6055

Educational Field and Small Mine Services  

New EGov Users Registration 

## MSHA Program Policy Manual

Provides assistance in interpreting and clarifying the various training requirements outlined in 30 CFR Part 46 and Part 48.

## Part 46 Training Plan Starter Kit

Also En EspañolProvides help in developing an effective, mine-specific training program that meets the provisions of Part 46. This starter kit includes a sample training plan.

## Part 46 Training Plan Guide

Outlines the minimum requirements for a Part 46 training plan and answers some of the most common questions regarding Part 46 training plan components.

## Quick Links

Part 46 Training Records/Certificates

Subscribe to get training updates and alerts

## Related Links

Educational Field and Small Mine Services

National Mine Health and Safety Academy

Mine Safety and Health Enforcement