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

<ARTICLE>   5
<LEGEND>
"This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Resort
Income Investors, Inc.'s Form 10QSB for the six months ended June 30, 1997
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such Form 10QSB."
</LEGEND>

       
<S>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>           6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                  JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       1,773,341 
<SECURITIES>                                   374,974 
<RECEIVABLES>                               17,691,791 
<ALLOWANCES>                                15,867,000 
<INVENTORY>                                       0    
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,596,094 
<PP&E>                                            0    
<DEPRECIATION>                                    0    
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,596,094 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          234,876 
<BONDS>                                           0    
<COMMON>                                     4,361,218 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0    
<PREFERRED>                                       0    
<OTHER-SE>                                        0    
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,596,094 
<SALES>                                           0    
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                56,029 
<CGS>                                             0    
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     0    
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               496,401 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0    
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                0    
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (440,372)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      0    
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               0    
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0    
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0    
<CHANGES>                                         0    
<NET-INCOME>                                  (440,372)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.11)

<FN>

NOTE:   The above captions are specified in Exhibit 27, and contemplate
that the entity is a going concern.  As discussed in Note 1 to the
Company's unaudited financial statements, the Company is in the process of
liquidation as of June 30, 1997.  The amounts above are presented with the
caption that, in management's judgment, most closely correlates to
respective financial statement captions used in the Company's financial
statements.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
10129.

#### Pendley *v.*Cohutta Banking Company.

Decided August 7, 1919.

Añidavit of illegality; from Murray superior court—Judge Tarver. August 13, 1918.

*W. E. Mann,*for plaintiff.

*C. N. King, W. C. Marlin, F. K. McCutchen,*contra.

Bloodworti-i, J.

The court did not err in directing a verdict for the defendant in error.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.*
11020.

#### Conner *v.*The State.

Decided January 6, 1920.

Accusation of cheating and swindling; from city court of Thomasville—jítdge *W.*H. Hammond. October 8, 1919.

*Eldon L. Joiner,*for plaintiff in error.

*E. J. MacIntyre, solicitor,*contra.

Broyles, C. J.

While the evidence in this case was conflicting upon the material issues, and would have authorized the defendant’s acquittal, it also authorized his conviction; and the finding of the jury having been approved by the trial judge, ^tliis court is without authority to interfere. Bor a ease similar in several material respects, see *Garner v. State,*100 *Ga.*257 (28 S. E. 24).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.*
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4158 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4158

    To provide for the conveyance to the Government of Mexico of a 
 decommissioned National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ship, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 2, 2004

  Mr. Ortiz (for himself, Mr. Gonzalez, Mr. Hinojosa, Mr. Reyes, Mr. 
Rodriguez, and Mr. Green of Texas) introduced the following bill; which 
               was referred to the Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To provide for the conveyance to the Government of Mexico of a 
 decommissioned National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ship, 
                        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. CONVEYANCE OF NOAA VESSEL WHITING.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of Commerce shall convey to the 
Government of Mexico, without consideration, all right, title, and 
interest of the United States in and to the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration vessel WHITING--
            (1) for use as a hydrographic survey platform in support of 
        activities of the United States-Mexico Charting Advisors 
        Committee; and
            (2) to enhance coordination and cooperation between the 
        United States and Mexico regarding hydrographic surveying and 
        nautical charting activities in the border waters of both 
        countries in the Gulf of Mexico and in the Pacific Ocean.
    (b) Operation and Maintenance.--The Government of the United States 
shall not be responsible or liable for any remediation, maintenance, or 
operation of a vessel conveyed under this section after the date of the 
delivery of the vessel to the Government of Mexico.
    (c) Deadline.--The Secretary shall seek to complete the conveyance 
by as soon as practicable after the date of the enactment of this Act.
    (d) Delivery of Vessel.--The Secretary shall deliver the vessel 
WHITING pursuant to this section at the vessel's homeport location of 
Norfolk, Virginia, at no additional cost to the United States.
                                 <all>
```
11015.

#### Rhodes *v.*The State

Decided January 27, 1920.

Indictment for robbery; from Fulton superior court—Judge Humphries. October 18, 1919.

*Tillou Von Nunes,*for plaintiff in error.

*John A. Boylcin, solicitor-general, E. A. Stephens,*contra.

Bloodworth, J.

There is nothing in either of the four special grounds of the motion for new trial that would require a reversal of the judgment; there is evidence to support the finding of the jury, which has the approval of the trial judge, and, as no error of law appears, the judgment is

*Affirmed.*

*Broyles, O. J., and Lulce, J., eonour.*
#### Lloyd & Tribble *v.*M. M. Queen, etc.

Mechanic’s Lien — Sufficiency of Evidence.

The evidence was held not to sh owthat plaintiffs had a mechanic’s lien on the property in question.

APPEAL FROM DAVIESS CIRCUIT COURT.

December 16 1872.

*114*Sweeney & Stewart, for appellants.*

*Williams, for appellees.*

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

The right of Tribble to subject to the payment of his debt the house and lot in his petition mentioned, depends upon whether the note sued on was executed for a balance due for carpenters and joiners’ work done on said house. This fact is expressly denied by Bemy. There is testimony showing that appellant did such work during the winter of 1867 and 1868, and that the job was not completed until July, 1868. But there is no evidence showing that any part of the work remained unpaid for until December 24, 1868, when the note was executed, and no evidence tending’ to show the consideration for the note except the recital therein contained. As this note was not executed by Queen and wife until after the liens of the various appellees had been created, they are in no wise affected by such recitals. f

In the absence of proof showing that the debt sued on was for carpenters’ and joiners’ work done on the house built by Queen and wife, it was difficult for the court to' conclude that appellants held a mechanic’s lien on the property at all, much less to declare it superior to the undoubted liens held by appellees.

The proof certainly did not authorize any other relief than that appellants have obtained and they have no ground of complaint.
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4321

To amend part D of title XVIII of the Social Security Act to require 

the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate and disclose 

lowest possible prices for prescription drug prices for Medicare beneficiaries. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 10, 2004

Mr. LYNCH introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways 

and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, 

in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL

To amend part D of title XVIII of the Social Security 

Act to require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate and disclose lowest possible prices for 

prescription drug prices for Medicare beneficiaries.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 4321 IH 

1 SECTION 1. NEGOTIATION AND DISCLOSURE OF LOWEST 

2 POSSIBLE PRICES FOR PRESCRIPTION 

3 DRUGS UNDER MEDICARE. 

4 Section 1860D–11 of the Social Security Act, as 

5 added by section 101(a) of the Medicare Prescription 

6 Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (Pub7 lic Law 108–173), is amended by striking subsection (i) 

8 (relating to noninterference) and by inserting the fol9 lowing: 

10 ‘‘(i) NEGOTIATION AND DISCLOSURE OF BEST

11 PRICES.—

12 ‘‘(1) NEGOTIATION.—In order to ensure that 

13 beneficiaries enrolled under prescription drug plans 

14 and MA–PD plans pay the lowest possible price, the 

15 Secretary shall have and exercise authority similar 

16 to that of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, the Sec17 retary of Defense, and the heads of other Federal 

18 agencies and departments that purchase prescription 

19 drugs in bulk to negotiate contracts with manufac20 turers of covered part D drugs, consistent with the 

21 requirements and in furtherance of the goals of pro22 viding quality care and containing costs under this 

23 part. In exercising such authority, the Secretary 

24 shall negotiate the best possible prices for such 

25 drugs. 
3

•HR 4321 IH 

1 ‘‘(2) DISCLOSURE.—The Secretary shall widely 

2 disseminate information on the prices for covered 

3 part D drugs negotiated under paragraph (1).’’.

Æ
#### STATE v. CLARK

No. 267P97

Case below: 122 N.C.App. 396

Petition by defendant for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 23 July 1997.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7690
JAMES SMITH, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN D. WHITEHURST, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, District Judge. (CA-95-1193-AM) Submitted: February 7, 1996 Decided: February 26, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Smith, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Smith v. Whitehurst , No. CA-95-1193-AM (E.D. Va. Oct. 11, 1995). 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.

AFFIRMED
**Exhibit 23.1**

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 

We consent to the incorporation byreference in Registration Statements (Nos. 333-189002, 333-183491, 333-173208, 333-176110 and 333-176111) on Form S-8 and Registration Statements (Nos. 333-188573, 333-178584 and 333-171998) on Form S-3 of our report dated March 11, 2013,relating to our audits of the consolidated financial statements of InVivo Therapeutics Holdings Corp. appearing in the Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of InVivo Therapeutics Holdings Corp. for the year ended December 31, 2012.

/s/ Wolf & Company, P.C. 

Wolf & Company, P.C. 

Boston,Massachusetts 

September 11, 2013
<PAGE>   1
 
   
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.5
    
 
   
                          CONSENT OF DIRECTOR NOMINEE
    
 
   
     I consent to the use of my name as a director nominee in Amendment No. 3 to
the Registration Statement of Clark/Bardes Holdings, Inc. on Form S-1 (File No.
333-56799), and I agree with the statements concerning myself under the caption
"Management -- Executive Officers, Directors and Key Employees."
    
 
   
                                                  /s/ GEORGE D. DALTON
    
                                            ------------------------------------
   
                                                      George D. Dalton
    
 
   
August 14, 1998
10662.

#### Brown *v.*The State.

Decided October 10, 1919.

Conviction of manslaughter; from Bibb superior court—Judge Mathews. May 21, 1919.

*John B. Cooper, W. A. McClellan, W. 0. Cooper, Jr.,*for plaintiff in error.

*John P. Boss, solicitor-general,*contra

Bloodwoeth, J.

The second ground of the amendment to the motion for new trial is not referred to in the brief of counsel for plaintiff in error, and will be treated as abandoned.

2. When read in connection with the entire charge, there is no error in any of the excerpts from the charge of which complaint is made.

3. As far as legal and pertinent, the principle embraced in the request to charge was fully covered in the charge given. Besides, it does not appear that the request was made before the jury retired “to consider of their verdict.”

4. The evidence supports the verdict which.has the approval of the trial judge, and this court will not disturb it.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, O. J., and Luke, J., concur.*
National Institute of

Checking the Net Contents
Of Packaged Goods

0S adopted by the 95th
National Conference on
Weights and Measures 2010

om

20il
• To identify strategic standards priorities 

in driving innovation, increasing value and 

efficiency, and speeding lab to market across 

the semiconductor and microelectronics sector.

• To identify opportunities for innovation in 

standards development, including incubators 

and accelerators, that enable standards at the 

pace of innovation, broaden opportunities for 

participation, and provide educational and 

training opportunities.

CHIPS R&D STANDARDS SUMMIT – OVERVIEW

SEPTEMBER 26–27

PURPOSE OF THE CHIPS R&D STANDARDS SUMMIT

• To identify approaches for enabling a diverse, 

standards-capable workforce that can meet 

the needs of a vibrant semiconductor and 

microelectronics sector.

• To engage the semiconductor and 

microelectronics community in the launch of 

the CHIPS R&D Standards Program and build an 

energized network of stakeholders prepared to 

lead on strategic standards initiatives.

1. All Day 2 breakout sessions will feature 

pre-assigned participants to ensure each 

breakout group contains a representative 

sample of participants with different technical 

backgrounds. Given that breakout groups will not

be aligned with a specific research interest, the 

facilitation approach and discussion prompts will 

be consistent across all Day 2 breakout sessions.

2. The Summit Organizing Committee will 

define the optimal mix of participants to recruit 

across private industry, standards setting 

organizations, academia, and government during 

planning activities.

• Strategic Standards Priorities – Topics

• Standards Priority Areas – Scoping

• Incubators and Accelerators

• Diverse, Standards-Capable Workforce

• Pre-Standards Research

• Stakeholder Networking 

BREAKOUT GROUP ASSIGNMENTS SESSION TOPICS
<PAGE>

                        EXHIBIT 23-2
                        ------------

<PAGE>
<PAGE>


                   INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


The Board of Directors
Mercantile Bancorporation Inc.:

Plan Administrator
Mercantile Bancorporation Inc.
  Horizon Investment and Savings Plan and Trust:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(No. 33-35139) on Form S-8 of Mercantile Bancorporation Inc. related to
the Mercantile Bancorporation Inc. Horizon Investment and Savings Plan
and Trust of our report dated June 23, 1999, relating to the statements
of net assets available for plan benefits of the Mercantile
Bancorporation Inc. Horizon Investment and Savings Plan and Trust as of
December 31, 1998 and 1997, and the related statements of changes in net
assets available for plan benefits for the years then ended and the
related schedules, which report appears in the 1998 Annual Report on
Form 10-K/A, of Mercantile Bancorporation Inc.


                                   /s/ KPMG LLP


St. Louis, Missouri
June 28, 1999
10973.

#### Graham *v.*Maryland Life Insurance Co.

Decided January 27, 1920.

Complaint; from DeKalb superior court—Judge Smith. September 11,1919.

*Ralph McClelland,*for plaintiff. *L. J. Steele,*for defendant.

Broyles, C. J.

1. Where the insurer sues the insured upon unpaid past-due promissory notes given for the first annual premium on a policy of life-insurance, -which was delivered to and accepted by the insured, a recovery for the full amount of the notes, with interest and attorney’s fees, can not be defeated on the-ground of a failure of consideration, total or partial, in that the policy provided that it should not become of force until the first premium had actually been paid, and that a failure to pay any premium note when due would avoid the policy. 25 Cyc. 756, note 46; Id. 758, notes 62 and 63; Id. 759, note 69; Id. 760 (4), note 79.

2. The defendant’s plea of fraud in the procurement of the notes sued upon was not supported by any evidence.

3. Under the above rulings the court did not err in directing a verdict for the plaintiff for the full amount sued for.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.*
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4248 Received in Senate (RDS)]

  2d Session
                                H. R. 4248

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 7, 2004

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To amend title 38, United States Code, to increase the authorization of 
appropriations for the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to make grants to 
existing comprehensive service programs for homeless veterans, 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 ``Homeless Veterans Assistance Act of 
2004''.

SEC. 2. INCREASE IN AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 
              2005.

    Section 2013 of title 38, United States Code, is amended by 
striking ``$75,000,000'' in paragraph (4) and inserting 
``$99,000,000''.

SEC. 3. PERMANENT AUTHORITY FOR SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS TO 
              OPERATE SEXUAL TRAUMA COUNSELING PROGRAM.

    Section 1720D(a) of title 38, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``During the period 
        through December 31, 2004, the'' and inserting ``The''; and
            (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``, during the period 
        through December 31, 2004,''.

            Passed the House of Representatives October 7 (legislative 
      day, October 6), 2004.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
10053.

#### Casey *v.*Owens.

Wade, C. J.

1. The various grounds of the demurrer are without substantial merit, and the trial judge did not err in overruling them.

2. The court erred in charging the jury that “under the statute of the State of Florida which the defendant has pleaded as a defense to the note sued upon,, the burden is upon the defendant to show by a preponderance of the evidence that notice of dishonor of the note sued upon was not given to him. Placing such notice in the mails for transmission to him within the time required by the statute so pleaded would be a sufficient compliance with the law as to notice.” Under the laws of the State of Florida pleaded by the defendant, when a person not otherwise a party to an instrument places thereon his signature in blank before delivery, he is liable as an indorser; and before an indorser can be held liable on a note it is necessary that notice of dishonor by the maker be given him. The burden was therefore on the plaintiff to establish that notice of dishonor was given the defendant, and the charge complained of, having placed this burden on the defendant, was such error as to require a reversal. See, in this connection, the following cases, in which a Georgia statute similar to the Florida statute was construed. *Allen*v. *Ga. Nat. Bank,*60 *Ga.*347; *Apple*v. *Lesser,*93 *Ga.*749 (21 S. E. 171).

*(a)*The uncontradicted testimony of the defendant that notice of dishonor was never received by him was sufficient proof under the Florida law; and the charge complained of was subject to the criticism that it conveyed to the jury the impression that the defendant must prove not only that he never received notice of dishonor, but that such notice was never mailed him—a burden impossible to carry unless he made the plaintiff a witness for himself.

*92Decided July 17, 1919.

Compaint; from Camden superior court—Judge Highsmith. July 29, 1918.

*Emmett McElreaih, John T. Vocelle,*for plaintiff in error.

*8. 8. Townsend,*contra.

3. *No*otlier reversible error appears from the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Jenhins and Luke, JJ., concur.*
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20

- 7671

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. BRYAN O’NEAL CASEY , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond

. John A. Gibney, Jr. , Senior District Judge. ( 3:08

- cr - 00261

- JAG

- 1 )

Submitted : December 9, 2021 Decided: December 16, 2021

Before KING and AGEE , Circuit Judges , and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Bryan O’Neal Casey, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Bryan O’Neal Casey appeals the distric t court’s order denying his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (i) , as amended by the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115

- 391, § 603(b)(1), 132 Stat. 5194, 5239. Having reviewed the record and finding no reversible error, we affirm the decision of the district court

. See United States v. Casey , No . 3:08

- cr - 00261

- JAG

- 1 ( E.D. Va. Oct. 20, 2020 ). 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