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>   Nov-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>      Dec-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>        May-31-1999
<CASH>                       227
<SECURITIES>                   0
<RECEIVABLES>               3870
<ALLOWANCES>                   0
<INVENTORY>                 5224
<CURRENT-ASSETS>            9470
<PP&E>                      1527
<DEPRECIATION>               722
<TOTAL-ASSETS>             12247
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>       6602
<BONDS>                        0
<COMMON>                     131
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>          0
<PREFERRED>                    0
<OTHER-SE>                  3191
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>12247
<SALES>                     8746
<TOTAL-REVENUES>            8746
<CGS>                       6087
<TOTAL-COSTS>               8581
<OTHER-EXPENSES>               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>           (36)
<INCOME-PRETAX>             1537
<INCOME-TAX>                  76
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           78
<DISCONTINUED>                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                0
<CHANGES>                      0
<NET-INCOME>                  77
<EPS-BASIC>                 .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                 .01


</TABLE>
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

GALAXIAS MARITIME, LTD.,

Appellant,

v.

MORAN YACHT & SHIP, INC., & MORAN YACHT MANAGEMENT, INC.

d/b/a Moran Yacht Management, LLC, d/b/a

Moran Yacht Management, Ltd.,

Appellee s

.

No. 4D 16

- 1777

[ August 3, 2017 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,

Broward County ; Dale Ross, Judge; L.T. Case No. 12

- 033025 (08)

.

Albert L. Frevola, Jr. of Conrad & Scherer, LLP, Fort Lauderdale, for

appellant.

Gregory G. Ols en of Morgan, Olsen & Olsen, LLP, Fort Lauderdale, for

appellees.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

T

AYLOR

, D AMOORGIAN , and K UNTZ , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Robert I. Reed, Appellant, v Jeffery Tedford, as Superintendent of Adirondack Correctional Facility, Respondent.

[973 NYS2d 369]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Muller, J.), entered August 31, 2012 in Essex County, which denied petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, without a hearing.

Petitioner, who is serving an aggregate prison sentence of 8V3 to 25 years as a result of his 1993 conviction of two counts of rape in the first degree *(People v Reed,*212 AD2d 962 [1995], *lv denied*86 NY2d 739 [1995]), was later convicted in 1995 of two counts of promoting prison contraband in the first degree and sentenced to concurrent prison terms of 2V2 to 5 years, to run consecutively to the sentences for the rape convictions. He has unsuccessfully challenged the rape convictions on direct appeal and, among other things, various habeas corpus applications *(see e.g. People ex rel. Reed v Travis,*12 AD3d 1102, 1103 [2004], *lv denied*4 NY3d 704 [2005]). In June 2012, petitioner brought this application for a writ of habeas corpus arguing, among other things, that, with respect to the rape convictions, there were defects or irregularities in the order of commitment and he was being detained for crimes he did not commit. Supreme Court denied petitioner’s application and he now appeals.

We affirm. Significantly, petitioner’s “arguments were or could have been raised upon [his] direct appeal or CPL article 440 motion and, as no extraordinary circumstances exist that would warrant a departure from traditional orderly procedure, habeas corpus relief is unavailable” *(People ex rel. Rivas v Walsh,*69 AD3d 1236 [2010], *lv denied*14 NY3d 712 [2010]; *see People ex rel. Williams v Cunningham,*106 AD3d 1303, 1304 [2013]). Moreover, as previously noted by the Fourth Department, even if there was some validity to petitioner’s challenge to the commitment order, he “would not be entitled to immediate release because there is a valid judgment of conviction underlying the commitment, and thus habeas corpus relief is not appropriate” *(People ex rel. Reed v Travis,*12 AD3d at 1103). Accordingly, we find no basis to disturb the denial of his application.

Peters, P.J., Rose, Stein and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

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

     In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Symbion, Inc. (the
"Company") for the year ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard E.
Francis, Jr., Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

          (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

          (2)  Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

Date: March 26, 2004

                                    /s/ Richard E. Francis, Jr.
                                    -----------------------------------------
                                    Richard E. Francis, Jr.
                                    Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive
                                    Officer
Chairman 

Liquor Regulation Committee Re: Constitutionality of Rouse 

House of Representatives Bill No. 257 

State of Texas 

Capitol Building 

Austin, Texas 

E 

Arrwrriu ax. TEXAS 

April 1, 1965 

John E. Blalne Opinion No. C-410 

Dear Mr. Blalne: 

You have recently asked the opinion of this offi& 

as to the constltutionali,ty of House Bill No, q57 of th,e 

59th Legislature. House Bill No. 257 proposes to amend 

Vernon:'8 Penal Code, Article 666-26, subsection (b) so as 

to d&eta the WON "knowingly" from this subsection. 

Article 666-26, subsection (b) npw reads: 

"(b) It shall further be unlawful for 

any person to knowingly sell an liquor to 

any person under twenty-one (21 3 years of 

age, or to any person who is intoxicated, or 

to any habitual drunkard, or to any insane 

person." 

House Bill No. 257 reads in that portion pertinent 

to your request as follows: 

"(b) It shall further be unlawful for 

any person to sell any liquor to any person 

under twenty-one (21) years of age, or to 

any person who is intoxicated, or to any 

habitual drunkard, or to any Insane person." 

We have made a search of the organic, the statutory 

and the case law covering the subject of acts that are malum 

prohibiturn and find nothing which cauaes’us to conclude that 

the proposed amendment Is unconstitutional. 

Therefore, we are of the opinion that the proposed 

amendment to Article 666-26, subsection (b), Vernon's Penal 

Code is constitutional. 

-1939,- 
Honorable Joe E. Blaine, page 2 (C-410) 

SUNNARY 

House Bill No. 257 of the 59th Legislature is constitutional. 

Yours very truly, 

WAQOONER CARR 

Attorney General of Texas 

Assistant Attorney General 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

W. V. Geppert, Chairman 

John Reeves 

Bob Flowers 

Harry Gee 

Sam L. Kelley 

APPROVED FOR TIiR A!P!l'ORNEY OENERAL 

BY: Stanton Stone 

-1940-
##### Table of Contents



SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION WASHINGTON, DC 20549
 FORM 6-K REPORT OF FOREIGN PRIVATE ISSUER PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-16 OR 15d-16 OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the month of September 2004 Fairmont Hotels & Resorts Inc.   Canadian Pacific Tower, Ste
1600, 100 Wellington Street W., Toronto, Ontario M5K 1B7, Canada   (Indicate by check mark whether the registrant files or will file annual
reports under cover of Form 20-F or Form 40-F.) Form 20-F o     Form 40-F þ (Indicate by check mark whether the registrant by furnishing the
information contained in this form is also thereby furnishing the information
to the Commission pursuant to Rule 12g3-2(b) under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.) Yes o     No þ (If Yes is marked, indicate below the file number assigned to the
registrant in connection with Rule 12g3-2(b): 82-_______. This report furnished on Form 6-K shall be incorporated by reference into
each of the Registration Statements under the Securities Act of 1933 of the
registrant: Form S-8 No. 333-13960. Page 1 of 2 Pages
Exhibits Index appears on Page 3




---



TABLE OF CONTENTS  SIGNATURESExhibits IndexEX-99.1    Table of Contents  
 SIGNATURES Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.  FAIRMONT HOTELS & RESORTS INC.
                       (Registrant)Date: September 16, 2004
    By
    /s/ Terence P. BadourName:
    Terence P. BadourTitle:
    Executive Vice President, Law and Administration
and Corporate Secretary




---



##### Table of Contents



Exhibits Index The following is a list of Exhibits included as part of this Report on Form
6-K. Exhibit No.
    
    Description of Exhibits99.1
    
    Fairmont Hotels & Resorts Inc. To Participate In Scotia Capital Conference
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                    DEC-31-1996 
<CASH>                          64,781
<SECURITIES>                         0        
<RECEIVABLES>                  190,123                
<ALLOWANCES>                     4,008              
<INVENTORY>                    169,098                
<CURRENT-ASSETS>               429,093                
<PP&E>                         346,650                
<DEPRECIATION>                 209,808              
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                 663,018               
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>          119,982                
<BONDS>                         40,377                
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                0          
<PREFERRED>                          0          
<COMMON>                           685
<OTHER-SE>                     484,427          
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>   663,018               
<SALES>                        231,664               
<TOTAL-REVENUES>               231,664               
<CGS>                          141,692                
<TOTAL-COSTS>                  141,692               
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                51,860               
<LOSS-PROVISION>                   296               
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>               1,259           
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 37,446               
<INCOME-TAX>                    13,106             
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             24,340                
<DISCONTINUED>                       0               
<EXTRAORDINARY>                      0          
<CHANGES>                            0          
<NET-INCOME>                    24,340               
<EPS-PRIMARY>                      .40           
<EPS-DILUTED>                      .40            
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eduardo GARCIA-CAVAZOS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-41456.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided June 20, 2006.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Michael L. Herman, Philip G. Gallagher, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Eduardo Garcia-Cavazos challenges his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for illegal reentry following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Garcia-Cavazos’s argument that his prior burglary conviction in Texas does not qualify as a crime of violence under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii) has been rejected by *382this court. *See United States v. Garcia-Mendez,*420 F.3d 454, 456-57 (5th Cir. 2005), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 1398, 164 L.Ed.2d 100 (2006). Garcia-Cavazos’s argument that this court did not properly apply the categorical analysis of *Taylor v. United States,*495 U.S. 575, 110 S.Ct. 2143, 109 L.Ed.2d 607 (1990), is tantamount to arguing that *Garcia-Mendez*was wrongly decided. *Garcia-Mendez*resolved the issue raised in this case; one panel of this court may not ignore the precedent set by a prior panel. *United States v. Ruiz,*180 F.3d 675, 676 (5th Cir.1999).

Garcia-Cavazos also argues that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (b)(2) are unconstitutional in light of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). His 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 Garcia-Cavazos 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). Garcia-Cavazos properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of *Almendarez-Torres*and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for review by the Supreme Court.

AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
EXHIBIT 23



<PAGE>


                  CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM




Biocurex, Inc.
7080 River Road, Suite 215
Richmond, British Columbia V6X 1X5


We consent to the incorporation by reference of our audit report dated March 29,
2011 which is  included  in the Annual  Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended
December 31, 2010 of BioCurex,  Inc. in the Company's  Registration Statement on
Form S-8 pertaining to the  Non-Qualified  Stock Option Plan and the Stock Bonus
Plan.


/s/ "MANNING ELLIOTT LLP"

CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS

Vancouver, Canada

March 26, 2012

<PAGE>
```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 8 (Tuesday, January 13, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 1681]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00419]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities 
and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Thursday, January 
15, 2015 at 2:00 p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the 
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting. 
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be 
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or her designee, has 
certified that, in her opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth 
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 
200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the 
scheduled matter at the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Gallagher, as duty officer, voted to consider the 
items listed for the Closed Meeting in closed session.

    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting will be:
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings; and
    Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.

    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in 
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have 
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact the Office of the 
Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

    Dated: January 8, 2015.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-00419 Filed 1-9-15; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

IRVING C. BOYD, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CA 09-0322-WS-C

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, :

Commissioner of Social Security, 

:

Defendant.

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to

the issues raised, and there having been no objections filed, the recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(B) and dated January 4, 2010 is

ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court.

DONE this 25th day of January, 2010.

s/WILLIAM H. STEELE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:09-cv-00322-WS-C Document 14 Filed 01/25/10 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       1,995,020
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  228,134
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      55,444,299
<DEPRECIATION>                            (32,704,249)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              31,925,517
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                     39,144,441
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                31,925,517
<SALES>                                      3,750,149
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,776,043
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,529,960
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             946,646
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            299,437
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   299,437
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1469
NDEYE MAME GUINDO, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A72-001-315) Submitted: December 15, 2006 Decided: February 1, 2007 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kell Enow, LAW OFFICES OF ENOW & PATCHA, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Kathryn L. Moore, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Ndeye Mame Guindo, a native and citizen of Senegal, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying her motion to reopen immigration proceedings. We have reviewed the record and the Board’s order and find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2006); INS v. Doherty , 502 U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. SeeIn re: Guindo , No. A72-001-315 (B.I.A. Mar. 22, 2006). 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.

PETITION DENIED
**Exhibit 32.1**

**Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as Adopted Pursuant to**

**Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

In connection with the Annual Report of MASS Petroleum Inc., (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the year ended November 30, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jordan Shapiro, Chief Executive Officer of the Company certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

| 1.     | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                                                                 |
| 2.     | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |

 

 

By: /s/ Jordan Shapiro

Jordan Shapiro

President and Chief Executive Officer

October 30, 2013
**Exhibit 32.1**

**Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as Adopted Pursuant to**

**Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

In connection with the Annual Report of MASS Petroleum Inc., (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended November 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Gary Chayko, Chief Executive Officer of the Company certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

| 1   

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

 

2

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

By: /s/ Gary Chayko

Gary Chayko

President and Chief Executive Officer

March 16, 2010

 

 

 

                               |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|