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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                             577
<SECURITIES>                                       195
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,437
<ALLOWANCES>                                       858
<INVENTORY>                                      7,061
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                16,413
<PP&E>                                          10,761
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,791
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  30,786
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           26,322
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         40
<COMMON>                                           402
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,940
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    30,786
<SALES>                                         10,316
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                10,316
<CGS>                                            8,964
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   21,467
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,434
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (12,585)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         6
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (12,591)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (12,591)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.40)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.40)


</TABLE>
1

One of the exhibits was a recording of a call-in radio show during which the defendant

called in and spoke of the fact that he was, at the time, a fugitive and that he knew he was a flight

risk.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

vs. ) CRIM. NO. 08-00327-CG

)

JESSE S. HAGGARD, )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

This matter is before the court on the United States’ motion (Doc. 356) for review of the

Magistrate Judges’ order detaining the defendant pending trial. The court has reviewed the

record de novo by carefully reviewing the filings pertinent to release or detention, listening to

the recording of the detention hearing held before the Magistrate Judge in the Middle District of

Florida, reviewing the exhibits from the detention hearing1

, and reviewing the pretrial services

report from the Middle District of Florida. The court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s

assessment during the detention hearing that the evidence requires that the defendant be detained

pending trial because there is a serious risk that the defendant will flee. He has spent the last

year and a half living outside this country, knowing that he was under investigation and, later,

under indictment. Although he came to the decision to return to this country and made

arrangements to turn himself in, the evidence is clear that he could just as easily reverse that

decision and again absent himself from the court. Accordingly, the order of the Magistrate

Judge detaining the defendant pending trial is AFFIRMED.

DONE and ORDERED this 20th day of November, 2009.

 /s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:08-cr-00327-CG-B Document 365 Filed 11/20/09 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CYNTHIA A. FAIR, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 04-0775-CG-D

)

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, )

Commissioner of Social Security, )

)

Defendant. )

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the order entered on this date, it is hereby ORDERED,

ADJUDGED, and DECREED that plaintiff be awarded attorney fees in the amount of $625.00

under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412, for legal services rendered by

plaintiff’s attorney in this court. 

DONE this 20th day of October, 2005. 

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-00775-CG-D Document 21 Filed 10/20/05 Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7217

JESSE VERNON LALONE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

SHERIFF PHILLIP THOMPSON; WAYNE OWENS, Director; JOSEPH

JOHNSON, Major; SANDRA LOWE, Sergeant,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Charleston. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:18-cv-03232-HMH)

Submitted: April 30, 2020 Decided: May 7, 2020

Before KEENAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jesse Vernon LaLone, Appellant Pro Se. J.W. Nelson Chandler, CHANDLER & 

DUDGEON LLC, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Jesse Vernon LaLone appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42

U.S.C. § 1983 (2018) complaint. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2018). The magistrate judge recommended that 

relief be denied and advised LaLone that failure to file timely, specific objections to this 

recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the 

recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is 

necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of the recommendation when the 

parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Martin v. Duffy, 858 

F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see 

also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985). LaLone argues on appeal that he properly 

objected to all portions of the magistrate judge’s report. We disagree. Although LaLone 

received proper notice and filed timely objections to the magistrate judge’s 

recommendation, he has waived appellate review of his due process claim because the 

objections were not specific to the particularized legal recommendations made by the 

magistrate judge relating to the availability of postconviction remedies. See Martin, 858 

F.3d at 245 (holding that, “to preserve for appeal an issue in a magistrate judge’s report, a 

party must object to the finding or recommendation on that issue with sufficient specificity 

so as reasonably to alert the district court of the true ground for the objection” (internal 

quotation marks omitted)).

2
We also conclude that, although LaLone specifically objected to the sovereign 

immunity question, he has forfeited appellate review of that issue because he makes no 

argument in his informal brief on appeal that such immunity is inapplicable or otherwise 

waived. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We deny LaLone’s 

motion to appoint counsel, and 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

3
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Francisco GOMEZ-VASQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-40164

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 20, 2006.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, David Hill Peck, U.S. Attorney’s Of*390fice, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Timothy William Crooks, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Francisco Gomez-Vasquez (Gomez) appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for being found unlawfully in the United States after having been deported. The district court sentenced Gomez to 82 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release.

Gomez argues that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (2) are unconstitutional in light of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Gomez’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Although Gomez contends that *Almendarez-Torres*was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule *Almendarez-Torres*in light of *Apprendi,*we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that *Almendarez-Torres*remains binding. *See United States v. Garza-Lopez,*410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 298, 163 L.Ed.2d 260 (2005). Gomez properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of *Almendarez-Torres*and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review.

Gomez also argues that the district court erred by ordering him to cooperate in the collection of a DNA sample as a condition of supervised release. This claim is not ripe for review on direct appeal. *See United States v. Riascos-Cuenu,*428 F.3d 1100, 1101-02 (5th Cir.2005), *petition for cert. filed*(Jan. 9, 2006) (No. 05-8662). The claim is dismissed. *See id.*at 1102.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED; APPEAL DISMISSED IN PART.

*

 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.
#### Aramid Entertainment Fund Ltd. et al., Appellants, v Wimbledon Financing Master Fund, Ltd., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

[965 NYS2d 26]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Melvin L. Schweitzer, J.), entered on or about March 28, 2012, which granted defendant David Bergstein’s motion to dismiss the complaint as against him for lack of personal jurisdiction, and order, same court and Justice, entered March 22, 2012, which granted the motion of defendants Wimbledon Financing Master Fund, Ltd., WFM Holdings Ltd., Stillwater Capital Partners, Inc., Stillwater Market Neutral Fund III SPC, Gerova Financial Group, and Joseph Bianco, dismissing the complaint as against them for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiffs failed to state a claim for tortious interference with prospective business advantage, since there was no sufficient allegation that, but for defendants’ interference, Aramid would have completed the sale of its assets to a third party *(see Gebbia v Toronto-Dominion Bank,*306 AD2d 37, 38 [1st Dept 2003]). Nor have plaintiffs sufficiently alleged any facts suggesting that defendants undertook actions with the sole purpose of harming plaintiffs *(see Thome v Alexander & Louisa Colder Found.,*70 AD3d 88, 108 [1st Dept 2009], *lv denied*15 NY3d 703 [2010]). Plaintiffs also failed to state a claim for prima facie tort, since they failed to allege that defendants’ actions were solely motivated by malice or disinterested malevolence and they failed to plead special damages *(see Golub v Esquire Publ.,*124 AD2d 528, 529 [1st Dept 1986], *lv denied*69 NY2d 606 [1987]).

*683Plaintiffs failed to set forth a prima facie basis for jurisdiction over defendant Bergstein under CPLR 302 (a) (2). In particular, plaintiffs failed to allege facts showing that defendants, including defendant Bianco, as the agent of Bergstein, committed a tortious act in New York for the benefit and with the consent and knowledge of Bergstein, and in furtherance of a conspiracy that included Bergstein (see *de Capriles v Lugo,*293 AD2d 405 [1st Dept 2002], *lv dismissed and denied*98 NY2d 717 [2002]).

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying plaintiffs’ request for jurisdictional discovery, since they did not show that facts may exist supporting their theory of conspiracy *{Lugo,*293 AD2d at 406).

Concur—Acosta, J.E, Moskowitz, Renwick, Freedman and Clark, JJ.
FLKS 2015.6.30 Ex-10.4




FLEX PHARMA, INC.
NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION POLICY
AS REVISED ON JUNE 29, 2015
Each member of the Board of Directors (the “Board”) who is not also serving as an employee of Flex Pharma, Inc. (“Flex Pharma”) or any of its subsidiaries (each such member, an “Eligible Director”) will receive the compensation described in this Non-Employee Director Compensation Policy for his or her Board service.
This policy will be effective upon the date hereof (the “Effective Date”) and may be amended at any time in the sole discretion of the Board upon recommendation of the Compensation Committee of the Board.
Annual Cash Compensation
The annual cash compensation amount set forth below is payable in equal quarterly installments, payable in arrears on the last day of each fiscal quarter in which the service occurred. If an Eligible Director joins the Board or a committee of the Board at a time other than effective as of the first day of a fiscal quarter, each annual retainer set forth below will be pro-rated based on days served in the applicable fiscal year, with the pro-rated amount paid for the first fiscal quarter in which the Eligible Director provides the service, and regular full quarterly payments thereafter. All annual cash fees are vested upon payment.
		
	1.
	Annual Board Service Retainer:


		
	a.
	All Eligible Directors: $40,000


		
	b.
	Lead Independent Director: $50,000


		
	2.
	Annual Committee Chair Service Retainer:


		
	a.
	Chairman of the Audit Committee: $15,000


		
	b.
	Chairman of the Compensation Committee: $10,000


		
	c.
	Chairman of the Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee: $7,500


		
	3.
	Annual Committee Member (other than Committee Chair) Service Retainer:


		
	a.
	Member of the Audit Committee: $7,500


		
	b.
	Member of the Compensation Committee: $5,000


		
	c.
	Member of the Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee: $3,500


Equity Compensation
The equity compensation set forth below will be granted under the Flex Pharma, Inc. 2015 Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”). All stock options granted under this policy will be nonstatutory stock options, with an exercise price per share equal to 100% of the Fair Market Value (as defined in the Plan) of the underlying shares of the Company’s Common Stock (the “Common Stock”) on the date of grant, and a term of ten years from the date of grant (subject to earlier termination in connection with a termination of service as provided in the Plan).





1. Initial Grant: On or following each Eligible Director joining the Board, such director will be granted a stock option for 20,000 shares of the Company’s Common Stock, with such options vesting monthly over a period of three years measured from the date of such grant (or such other date as the Board shall otherwise determine).
2. Annual Grant: On the date of each stockholder meeting (or the Board’s June 2015 meeting) each Eligible Director who continues to serve as a non-employee member of the Board on such date will be granted a stock option for 10,000 shares, with such options vesting monthly over one year measured from the date of such grant.
Exhibit 23.2**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 No.’s333-56576, 333-64246, 333-32666, 333-103622, 333-116449, 333-122708and 333-126306) pertaining to the 1996 Stock Plan, the 1999 EmployeeStock Purchase Plan, the 2001 Supplemental Plan, and the 1999Equity Incentive Plan of Selectica, Inc. of our reportdated June 24, 2005, with respect to the consolidated balancesheet as of March 31, 2005 and the consolidated statements ofoperations, stockholders’ equity and cash flows for each of thetwo years in the period ended March 31, 2005 of Selectica, Inc.,included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended March 31, 2006./s/ ERNST AND YOUNG, LLPSan Jose, California
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Stephen PETERSON, a/k/a Anthony L. Lewis, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-7508.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 17, 2001.

Decided May 22, 2001.

Stephen Peterson, pro se. Jane Barrett Taylor, Office of the United States Attorney, Columbia, SC, for appellee.

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Stephen 'Peterson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. *See United States v. Peterson,*Nos. CR-96-679; CA-00-1781-3-19 (D.S.C. Aug. 11, 2000). 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.*
11373.

#### Carty *v.*The State.

Decided January 28, 1921.

Indictment for larceny after trust; from Lowndes superior court — Judge Humphries presiding. February 14, 1920.

The defendant demurred to the indictment on the ground that there was a misjoinder of counts, the second and fourth counts charging simple larceny, a misdemeanor, and the other counts charging a felony.

*Milner & Farlcas, Pottle & Eofmayer,*for plaintiff.

*C. P. Eay, solicitor-general, J. B. Copeland,*contra.

Per Curiam.

1. A nolle prosequi as to some of the counts in the indictment works no acquittal, but leaves the prosecution just as though such counts had never been inserted in the indictment. Dealy *v.*United States, 152 U. S. 539 (1) (38 L. ed. 545) ; *Martin*v. *State,*10 *Ga. App.*795 (1) (74 S. E. 304), and authorities cited. See also 20 Standard Enc. Proced. 655(1). Under this ruling the court did not err in permitting counts 2 and 4 of the indictment to be quashed.

2. After counts 2 and 4, which charged simple larceny, were quashed, the remaining counts of the indictment were not subject to the demurrer interposed, and the court did not err in overruling it.

3. The indictment charged the offense of larceny after trust, for that the defendant, “ after having been entrusted by Thomas A. Gary with twelve hundred dollars in money, of the value of twelve hundred dollars, the property of said Thomas A. Gary, for the purpose of applying .the same to the use and benefit of the said Thomas A. Gary, did fraududently convert the same to his own use, ” contrary to the laws, etc. The evidence did not show the trust as alleged, but conclusively showed .that the sum of money turned over to the defendant was to be applied for the benefit of Frank Gary, the son of Thomas A. Gary, to settle some debts and executions against Frank Gary. Therefore, the conviction of larceny after trust is not authorized, because the proof shows that the purpose of the trust was different from that alleged in the .indictment. See *White*v. *State,*19 *Ga. App.*230 (3) (91 S. E. 280), and cases cited. For this reason alone the judgment of the court overruling the. motion for a new trial is

*Reversed.*

*Broyles, C. J., and Luke and Bloodworth, JJ.,- concur.*
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1897 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Joint Items, Joint 

Economic Committee for fiscal year 2024. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 29, 2023 

Mr. BIGGS (for himself, Mr. ROSENDALE, Mr. GAETZ, Mr. GOOD of Virginia, 

Mr. ROY, and Mr. CRANE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Joint 

Items, Joint Economic Committee for fiscal year 2024. 

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

3 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR 

4 JOINT ITEMS, JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE 

5 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024. 

6 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

7 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise avail8 able for Joint Items, Joint Economic Committee for fiscal 

9 year 2024 may not exceed $4,203,000. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2039 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2039

   To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Related 
  Agencies, Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, Salaries and 
                     Expenses for fiscal year 2024.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2023

Mr. Biggs (for himself, Mr. Rosendale, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Good of Virginia, 
   Mr. Roy, and Mr. Crane) introduced the following bill; which was 
        referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Related 
  Agencies, Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, Salaries and 
                     Expenses for fiscal year 2024.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR RELATED AGENCIES, 
              FEDERAL MEDIATION AND CONCILIATION SERVICE, SALARIES AND 
              EXPENSES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for Related Agencies, Federal 
Mediation and Conciliation Service, Salaries and Expenses for fiscal 
year 2024 may not exceed $47,550,000.
                                 <all>
```
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D16-1459

_____________________________

TERRY PERRY,

Appellant,

v.

THERESA PERRY n/k/a THERESA 

CLIFFORD,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Steven M. Fahlgren, Judge.

January 19, 2018

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 

So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979).

RAY and OSTERHAUS, JJ., and PATTERSON, CHRISTOPHER N.,

ASSOCIATE JUDGE, concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

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

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Terry Perry, pro se, Appellant.

J. Garfield Hurt of the Law Office of J. Garfield Hurt, Middleburg,

for Appellee.