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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND BALANCE SHEET OF ALLERGAN SPECIALTY THERAPEUTICS,
INC. AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-10-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         188,904
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               191,218
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 191,218
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,737
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            34
<OTHER-SE>                                     185,481
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   191,218
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   717
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,022
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (11,305)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (11,305)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (11,305)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (3.45)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (3.45)
        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JEFFREY ALAN OLSON,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 111 WAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 7 th day of August, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

GRANTED . The issues, rephrased for clarity, are:

a. Does Birchfield v. North Dakota

, ––– U.S.

–––– , 136 S.Ct. 2160, 195 L.Ed.2d 560 (2016), apply retroactively where the petitioner challenges the legality of his sentence through a timely petition for post

- conviction relief?

b. Does Birchfield v. North Dakota

, ––– U.S.

–––– , 136 S.Ct. 2160, 195 L.Ed.2d 560 (2016), render enhanced criminal penalties for blood test refusal under 75 Pa.C.S. §§ 3803

– 3804 illegal?
<Page>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 31.02

                     RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) CERTIFICATIONS

I, Patrick Hayward, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of ML Futures Investments L.P.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this 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 report;

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

    a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
    disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 report is being
    prepared; and

    b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
    procedures and such presented in this report our conclusions about the
    effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of
    the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;

    c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
    over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
    fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
    materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial
    reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent function):

    a) All significant deficiencies and material weakness in the design or
    operation of internal controls which are reasonably likely to adversely
    affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report
    financial information; and

    b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
    employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control
    over financial reporting.


Date: August 12, 2005
-----------------------

By /s/ PATRICK HAYWARD
   --------------------
Patrick Hayward
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
#### THARP v. SOUTHERN GABLES, INC.

No. 140P97

Case below: 125 N.C.App. 364

Petition by defendant for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 8 May 1997.
Exhibit 15.2

[Letterhead of TransAsia Lawyers]

29 June, 2006

eLong, Inc.

Block B, XingKe Plaza Building

10 Jiuxianqiao Zhonglu

Chaoyang District, Beijing 100016

Peoples Republic of China

Dear Sirs:

We consent to the reference to our firm under the heading Government Regulation in Item 4: Information on the Company in eLong, Inc.s Annual
Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2005, which will be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in the month of June 2006.

Yours
faithfully,



|                     
|---------------------
|                     
|/s/ TransAsia Lawyers
|TransAsia Lawyers
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

 

 Petitioner Wesley Gene Duran has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1). The Honorable Eileen S. Willett, United States 

Magistrate Judge, issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 10), 

recommending that the Court deny the Petition. Judge Fine advised the parties that they 

had fourteen (14) days to file objections to the R&R and that failure to file timely 

objections could be considered a waiver of the right to obtain review of the R&R. Id. See 

also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72; United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 

1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 

 The parties did not file objections, which relieves the Court of its obligation to 

review the R&R. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 

(1985) (“[Section 636(b)(1)] does not . . . require any review at all . . . of any issue that is 

not the subject of an objection.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must 

determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly 

objected to.”). The Court has nonetheless reviewed the R&R and finds that it is wellGuadalupe Robles-Castro, 

 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

No. CV-16-00123-PHX-SPL

ORDER 

Case 2:16-cv-00123-SPL Document 11 Filed 02/24/17 Page 1 of 2
2 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

taken. The Court will adopt the R&R and deny the Petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) 

(stating that the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the 

findings or recommendations made by the magistrate”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The 

district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further 

evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.”). Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED:

1. That Magistrate Judge Willett’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 10) is 

accepted and adopted by the Court; 

2. That the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 

(Doc. 1) is denied and dismissed with prejudice; 

3. That a certificate of appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on 

appeal are denied; and 

4. That the Clerk of Court shall terminate this action. 

 Dated this 24th day of February, 2017.

Honorable Steven P. Logan

United States District Judge

 

Case 2:16-cv-00123-SPL Document 11 Filed 02/24/17 Page 2 of 2
SUBROUTINE DEXSF(P,SF)
C
C     PURPOSE--THIS SUBROUTINE COMPUTES THE SPARSITY
C              FUNCTION VALUE FOR THE DOUBLE EXPONENTIAL
C              (LAPLACE) DISTRIBUTION WITH MEAN = 0 AND
C              STANDARD DEVIATION = SQRT(2).
C              THIS DISTRIBUTION IS DEFINED FOR ALL X AND HAS
C              THE PROBABILITY DENSITY FUNCTION
C              F(X) = 0.5*EXP(-ABS(X)). 
C              NOTE THAT THE SPARSITY FUNCTION OF A DISTRIBUTION
C              IS THE DERIVATIVE OF THE PERCENT POINT FUNCTION,
C              AND ALSO IS THE RECIPROCAL OF THE PROBABILITY
C              DENSITY FUNCTION (BUT IN UNITS OF P RATHER THAN X).
C     INPUT  ARGUMENTS--P      = THE SINGLE PRECISION VALUE 
C                                (BETWEEN 0.0 AND 1.0)
C                                AT WHICH THE SPARSITY
C                                FUNCTION IS TO BE EVALUATED.
C     OUTPUT ARGUMENTS--SF     = THE SINGLE PRECISION
C                                SPARSITY FUNCTION VALUE.
C     OUTPUT--THE SINGLE PRECISION SPARSITY
C             FUNCTION VALUE SF.
C     PRINTING--NONE UNLESS AN INPUT ARGUMENT ERROR CONDITION EXISTS. 
C     RESTRICTIONS--P SHOULD BE BETWEEN 0.0 AND 1.0, EXCLUSIVELY.
C     OTHER DATAPAC   SUBROUTINES NEEDED--NONE.
C     FORTRAN LIBRARY SUBROUTINES NEEDED--NONE.
C     MODE OF INTERNAL OPERATIONS--SINGLE PRECISION.
C     LANGUAGE--ANSI FORTRAN. 
C     REFERENCES--FILLIBEN, SIMPLE AND ROBUST LINEAR ESTIMATION
C                 OF THE LOCATION PARAMETER OF A SYMMETRIC
C                 DISTRIBUTION (UNPUBLISHED PH.D. DISSERTATION,
C                 PRINCETON UNIVERSITY), 1969, PAGES 21-44, 229-231.
C               --FILLIBEN, 'THE PERCENT POINT FUNCTION',
C                 (UNPUBLISHED MANUSCRIPT), 1970, PAGES 28-31.
C               --JOHNSON AND KOTZ, CONTINUOUS UNIVARIATE
C                 DISTRIBUTIONS--2, 1970, PAGES 22-36.
C     WRITTEN BY--JAMES J. FILLIBEN
C                 STATISTICAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY (205.03)
C                 NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS
C                 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20234
C                 PHONE:  301-921-2315
C     ORIGINAL VERSION--JUNE      1972. 
C     UPDATED         --SEPTEMBER 1975. 
C     UPDATED         --NOVEMBER  1975. 
C
C---------------------------------------------------------------------
C
      IPR=6
C
C     CHECK THE INPUT ARGUMENTS FOR ERRORS
C
      IF(P.LE.0.0.OR.P.GE.1.0)GOTO50
      GOTO90
   50 WRITE(IPR,1)
      WRITE(IPR,46)P
      RETURN
   90 CONTINUE
    1 FORMAT(1H ,115H***** FATAL ERROR--THE FIRST  INPUT ARGUMENT TO THE
     1 DEXSF  SUBROUTINE IS OUTSIDE THE ALLOWABLE (0,1) INTERVAL *****)
   46 FORMAT(1H , 35H***** THE VALUE OF THE ARGUMENT IS ,E15.8,6H *****)
C
C-----START POINT-----------------------------------------------------
C
      IF(P.LE.0.5)SF=1.0/P
      IF(P.GT.0.5)SF=1.0/(1.0-P)
C
      RETURN
      END
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 528 Introduced in House (IH)]

  2d Session
H. RES. 528

Ordering the immediate printing of the entire communication received on 
            September 9, 1998, from an independent counsel.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 10, 1998

 Mr. Deutsch (for himself, Mr. Peterson of Minnesota, Mr. Condit, and 
 Ms. Eshoo) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                         the Committee on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Ordering the immediate printing of the entire communication received on 
            September 9, 1998, from an independent counsel.

    Resolved, That the entire communication received, including all 
appendices and related materials, on September 9, 1998, from an 
independent counsel, pursuant to section 595(c) of title 28, United 
States Code, shall be printed immediately as a document of the House of 
Representatives.
                                 <all>
```
10078.

#### Young *v.*Holsenbeck, executor.

Decided April 19, 1919.

Complaint; from Barrow superior court—Judge Cobb. July 30, 1918.

*G. A. Johns,*for plaintiff. *Lewis C. Russell,*for defendant.

Jenkins, J.

To a suit on a promissory note the maker pleaded material alterations such as would work his discharge. While he did not profess to have a clear and distinct recollection as to what was the form of the note when signed by him eight years previously, he did swear that he did not think that the alleged material addition in question was embraced in the note at that time; and as this evidence was to some extent corroborated by his testimony that the alleged material alteration was contrary to the distinct understanding then had as to the terms of the agreement, and also by evidence of other parties relative to the physical appearance of the instrument, the verdict in his favor, which has the approval of the trial judge, will not be disturbed. *Atlanta National Bank*v. *Bateman,*21 *Ga. App.*624 (2) (94 S. E. 853).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Wade, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.*
10264.

#### Walker *v.*Palace Pharmacy.

Decided May 13, 1919.

Description and counsel as in the ease cited above.

Jenkins, J.

This ease is controlled by the ruling made by this court in *Walker*v. *Cliff Drug Co.,*ante, 722; the only point insisted upon by counsel for plaintiff in error being that the evidence was insufficient to authorize the judgment rendered.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Wade, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.*
**Exhibit 10.8****Mercantile Bancorp, Inc.****Employment Agreement**     **This Employment Agreement**(the “**Agreement**”) is made and entered into effective as of January1, 2008 (“**Effective Date**”), by and between Mercantile Bancorp, Inc., a Delaware corporation(“**Company**”), with its principal office located at Quincy, Illinois, and Ted T. Awerkamp, of Quincy,Illinois (“**Employee**”).**RECITALS**     A. Company is a bank holding company.     B. Employee is currently employed by Company, pursuant to the terms of an employment agreementdated March 1, 2007 (the “**Prior Employment Agreement**”), in the position of President and ChiefExecutive Officer of Company.     C. Company desires to continue the employment of Employee in the position of President andChief Executive Officer of Company on the terms, covenants and conditions set forth in thisAgreement.     D. Employee desires to continue in the employ of Company in the position of President andChief Executive Officer of Company on the terms, covenants and conditions set forth in thisAgreement.     E. Company and Employee desire to enter into this Agreement as of the Effective Date and thisAgreement shall supersede all of the terms and conditions of all prior employment terms andconditions, whether or not in writing, including the Prior Employment Agreement and any such prioremployment agreement shall become null and void as of the Effective Date, and the partiesthereunder shall have no rights or interests therein.     **NOW, THEREFORE,**in consideration of the premises and of the covenants and agreementhereinafter contained, it is covenanted and agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows:**ARTICLE I**
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO****SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of 1-800 CONTACTS, INC. (the “Company”) onForm 10-Q for the period ended September 27, 2003 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Jonathan C. Coon, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)                                  The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

 
|   | /s/  Jonathan C. Coon                  |   |
|--------|----------------------------------------|--------|
|   | President  and Chief Executive Officer |
|   | Date:  November 10, 2003          |

 

----
#### Catharine Kline v. John Kline.

*Divorce*— Btemda/rd *of judgment in determining the merits.*

It seems that in proceedings for divorce'for such causes as drunkenness and cruelty between parties who are unrefined, and whose ways of life and habits of speech ought not to be tried by the standard of cultivated people, their case should be judged by the rules which respectable persons of the same condition in life would spontaneously acknowledge.

Appeal from -Cass. (A. J. Smith, J.)

Apr. 18.

Apr. 25.

Divorce bill. Complainant appeals.

Dismissal affirmed.

*Howell & Carr*for complainant.

*Joseph L. Sturr*and *Harsen D. Smith*for defendant.

Graves, C. J.

For nearly half a century these parties *439have lived together in wedlock, and now in their old age an attempt is made to procure a dissolution of the marriage. The cause comes here after a dismissal of the bill by the circuit judge.

The application is based on two grounds : *First,*that the defendant has become an habitual drunkard; *second,*that'he has been guilty of extreme cruelty.

It is evident that the parties are not specially refined, and that their ways of life and habits of speech ought not to be tried by the standard of manners and conversation peculiar to very cultivated people. The only just and safe course is to judge of them by the rule which respectable persons of the same class would spontaneously acknowledge. No doubt the defendant has given way to the evil habit of drink, and by means of it has brought discomfort to his home and trouble and sorrow to his aged wife. All this is extremely reprehensible, and no excuse can be given for it. But the question here is whether either of the alleged grounds of divorce is well proved — whether it is made out that he has become an habitual drunkard or has been guilty of the extreme cruelty charged. And after a careful study of the record we reach the conclusion that the weight of evidence favors neither, and that the circuit judge committed no error when he dismissed the bill.

The Court would especially lament the necessity of severing the bonds of marriage between persons so old and so long married; but, of course, were the facts sufficient the unpleasant duty could not be evaded.

The decree below must be affirmed

The other Justices concurred.
**Exhibit 13.14**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 20-F of Inmarsat Launch Company Limited (the“Company”) for the annual period ended 31 December 2006 (the “Periodic Report”), I, Rick Medlock, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge the Periodic Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in thePeriodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

 

 

Date: 27 April 2007