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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF RIBOZYME PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED
JUNE 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                      59,530,028
<SECURITIES>                                 4,050,476
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,793,681
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            67,854,497
<PP&E>                                      12,575,930
<DEPRECIATION>                               9,257,954
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              84,643,110
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,675,065
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        120
<COMMON>                                       152,851
<OTHER-SE>                                  81,815,070
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                84,643,110
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,750,835
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             9,240,987
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              91,108
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (6,274,800)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (6,274,800)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (6,274,800)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.47)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.47)


</TABLE>
#### Saml. Wilson et al. *v.*J. D. Elliott et al.

New Trial — Defective Petition — Demurrer — Amended Petition — Bill of Exceptions.

The only averment in the petition is “ that Wilson had prepared for the defense of the suit by summoning witnesses by whom he could have established a defense.” It was not stated that they could establish a defense if a new trial should be awarded. *Held,*that unless the facts had been stated in the petition, which appellant believed that witnesses would prove, so as to enable the court to adjudge of the materiality of the evidence, a new trial should not be awarded. '

Amended Petition — Bill of Exceptions.

In the absence of a bill of exceptions incorporating an amended petition, this court will presume that the court below decided correctly in refusing to permit it to be filed.

APPEAL PROM LARUE CIRCUIT COURT.

February 18, 1867.

Opinion oe the Court by

Judge Peters:

If it be couceded that the facts set forth in. the answer present a valid defense to the action, and that appellants satisfactorily accounted in their petition for a new trial for their failure to attend the trial of their cause, and to communicate with their attorneys *538and forward to them an affidavit showing that they were prevented by sickness to attend court, whereby they might have procured a continuance of their cause, still their petition was fatally defective in failing to disclose the facts they would prove by the witnesses to be introduced by them. The only averment in the petition in relation to the evidence is “ That said Wilson had prepared for the defense of said suit, by summoning witnesses, some of whom were present, and some were not at the time of judgment, by whom he could have established said defense.” Whether they would be able to establish said defense, if a new trial should be awarded them, they do not state. Unless the facts had been stated which appellants believed the witnesses would prove, so as to enable the court to judge of their materiality, a new trial should not be awarded. Picket *v.*Ricket, 2 Bibb, 178.

Murray, for Appellant.

Bead, for Appellees.

After a demurrer had been properly sustained to said petition a motion was made by appellants to be permitted to file an amended petition, which motion was overruled, and of that they complained.

With respect to the amended petition the record presents no evidence upon which we can base any action; a paper purporting to be an amended petition, with some depositions, is transcribed in the record, which may possibly be copies of those offered; but there is no bill of exceptions incorporating them, or referring to them so as to make them a part of the record, and in the absence of such a bill of exceptions this court must presume the court below decided correctly in refusing to permit them to be filed. Falkner *v.*Wilcox, 2 Litt. 369.

We cannot say that the appellants showed sufficient grounds for a continuance of the cause, or that the court below erred in ruling them into trial.

Wherefore, the judgment is affirmed.

Judge Hardin did not sit in this case.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-14-00294-CV

Kerstin Jones

v.

Roderick Darryl Jones

On Appeal from the

267th District Court of Victoria County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 13-2-74418-B

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The Court 

orders the appeal DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION in accordance with its 

opinion. No costs are assessed as appellant filed an affidavit of inability to pay costs.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

September 11, 2014
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 21

- 3630

_____________________________
L ARRY D IAMOND E ARL A SHLEY , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County

. Coleman Lee Robinson , Judge

. September 6, 2022

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
R AY , M.K. T HOMAS , and T ANENBAUM , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Lori A. Willner, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee
, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
#### Courtney Solomon MCKENZIE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Carl CASTERLINE, RespondentAppellee.

No. 03-30186.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 22, 2003.

Courtney Solomon McKenzie, Pollock, LA, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

Courtney Solomon McKenzie, federal prisoner # 14900-057, appeals the district court’s dismissal with prejudice of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. McKenzie argues that his claims fall under the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 because that section is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his imprisonment. His savings clause arguments are premised upon his contention that the jury did not determine drug quantity and therefore his constitutional rights were violated when the sentencing court determined quantity and used its quantity determination when it sentenced McKenzie to life imprisonment.

“[T]he savings clause of [28 U.S.C.] § 2255 applies to a claim (i) that is based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision which establishes that the petitioner may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense and (ii) that was foreclosed by circuit law at the time when the claim should have been raised in the petitioner’s trial, appeal, or first [28 U.S.C.] § 2255 motion.” *Reyes-Requena v. United States,*243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir.2001). While McKenzie does not cite *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), in his brief, his arguments are nonetheless based on principles set forth in *Apprendi. Apprendi*does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review, and an *Apprendi*claim does not satisfy the test for filing a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition under the savings *362clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255. *See Wesson v. U.S. Penitentiary, Beaumont, Tx.,*305 F.3d 343, 347-48 (5th Cir.2002), *cert. denied,*537 U.S. 1241, 123 S.Ct. 1374, 155 L.Ed.2d 212 (2003).

McKenzie’s reliance on *Sawyer v. Whitley,*505 U.S. 333, 112 S.Ct. 2514, 120 L.Ed.2d 269 (1992), is also misplaced. *Sawyer*was decided before McKenzie was convicted and did not legitimize drug-trafficking crimes. Therefore, McKenzie cannot use *Sawyer*to avail himself of the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255. *See Reyes-Requena,*243 F.3d at 904. McKenzie has not met either prong of the *ReyesRequena*test, and thus he cannot use 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to bring his habeas corpus claims challenging his federal sentence. *See id.*

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. McKenzie’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED.

*

 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.
#### The Commonwealth *v.*Flanary.

Robbery — By Military Order.

A defendant was not legally responsible for taking a horse when done in obedience to the order of his military commander.

APPEAL PROM WEBSTER CIRCUIT COURT.

June, 1866.

Opinion op the Court by

Judge Duvall :

The verdict and judgment acquitting the appellee of the charge of robbery must stand.

1. He seems to have had no agency in the forcible abduction of the horse charged in the indictment as robbery. A band of confederate soldiers in Crittenden county, Kentucky, took the horse in obedience to their official commander’s orders for the alleged use of the Confederate cavalry; and, while there is no satisfactory proof that the appellee was one of that squad of soldiers, the *184owner of the captured horse proved that the appellee approved the capture and prevented other threatened spoliations of his household property.

2. Had the appellee, as one of the capturing soldiers, co-operated in. the intimidation of the owner or the forcible taking of his horse, his submission to the military order of his commander, claiming the belligerent right to press the horse into the Confederate service, would have deprived his act of legal criminality even though the taking of private property for his own individual profit for the wanton destruction of it might not be thus exercised under pretense of any military authority.

Wherefore, the judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. KATIE MARIE DANIELS.

May 30, 1978.

Petition for certification denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S JUNE 30, 1999 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       4,899,903
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  605,837
<ALLOWANCES>                                    28,000
<INVENTORY>                                 36,148,790
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            42,945,187
<PP&E>                                      30,785,917
<DEPRECIATION>                              16,257,980
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              58,004,845
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       20,138,584
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        65,770
<OTHER-SE>                                  37,701,138
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                58,004,845
<SALES>                                     34,668,627
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            34,668,627
<CGS>                                       24,216,001
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             9,442,672
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (84,522)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,094,476
<INCOME-TAX>                                   436,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            658,476
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   658,476
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .10


</TABLE>
#### COUNTY OF SOMERSET v. TOWNSHIP OF MONTGOMERY.

June 21, 1978.

Petition for certification denied.
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1895

To temporarily extend the programs under the Small Business Act and 

the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 through March 15, 2004, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 19, 2003

Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Mr. KERRY) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice, considered, read the third time, and passed 

A BILL

To temporarily extend the programs under the Small Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act of 

1958 through March 15, 2004, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF PROGRAM AUTHORITY. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Any program, authority, or provi5 sion, including any pilot program, authorized under the 

6 Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 631 et seq.) or the Small 

7 Business Investment Act of 1958 (15 U.S.C. 661 et seq.) 

8 as of September 30, 2003, that is scheduled to expire on 

9 or after September 30, 2003, and before March 15, 2004, 
2

•S 1895 CPS 

1 shall remain authorized through March 15, 2004, under 

2 the same terms and conditions in effect on September 30, 

3 2003. 

4 (b) EXCEPTION.—Notwithstanding subsection (a), 

5 section 303(g)(2) of the Small Business Investment Act 

6 of 1958 (15 U.S.C. 683(g)(2)) is amended by striking 

7 ‘‘1.38 percent’’ and inserting ‘‘1.46 percent’’.

Æ
CERTIFICATIONS

I, David B. Cook, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of HFB Financial
Corporation;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

            (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
      material information relating to the registrant, including its
      consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
      entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is
      being prepared;

            (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
      controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing
      date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

            (c) Presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
      effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
      evaluation as of the Evaluation Date.

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

            (a) All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of
      internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
      record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified
      for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal
      controls; and

            (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
      other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
      controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
annual report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or in
other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date November 7, 2003


By /s/ David B. Cook
   -----------------------
   Chief Executive Officer


                                       16
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         279,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,204,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   118,000
<INVENTORY>                                  1,671,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,322,000
<PP&E>                                         386,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,207,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,708,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,625,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                 11,742,000
<COMMON>                                    10,925,000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,708,000
<SALES>                                      2,146,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,146,000
<CGS>                                        1,620,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,717,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              27,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (598,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (598,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (598,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.18)
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1846 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1846

 To amend title 38, United States Code, to establish a presumption of 
service-connection for certain veterans with Hepatitis C, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 11, 2003

   Ms. Snowe introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
             referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 38, United States Code, to establish a presumption of 
service-connection for certain veterans with Hepatitis C, 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. PRESUMPTION OF SERVICE-CONNECTION FOR CERTAIN VETERANS WITH 
              HEPATITIS C.

    (a) Presumption.--Section 1112 of title 38, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(d)(1) For the purposes of section 1110 of this title, and 
subject to the provisions of section 1113 of this title, the disease 
Hepatitis C becoming manifest to a degree of 10 percent or more in any 
veteran described in paragraph (2) after active military, naval, or air 
service covered by that paragraph shall be considered to have been 
incurred in or aggravated by such service, notwithstanding that there 
is no record of evidence of that disease during such service.
    ``(2) Paragraph (1) applies in the case of the following:
            ``(A) Veterans who received during a period of service 
        before December 31, 1992, a transfusion of blood or blood 
        products.
            ``(B) Veterans who were exposed to blood through the skin 
        during a period of service.
            ``(C) Veterans who underwent hemodialysis during a period 
        of service.
            ``(D) Veterans who experienced a needle-stick injury, not 
        due to the veteran's own willful misconduct, during a period of 
        service.
            ``(E) Veterans diagnosed with unexplained liver disease 
        during a period of service.
            ``(F) Veterans who served in a health-care position or 
        specialty during a period of service under such circumstances 
        as the Secretary shall prescribe for purposes of this 
        subsection.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act. No benefit may be 
paid or provided by reason of that amendment for any period before such 
date.
                                 <all>
```