alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
##### 



UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549
 FORM 8-K CURRENT REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 February 15, 2005
(Date of Report  date of earliest event reported) BROOKFIELD HOMES CORPORATION  Delaware(State or Other Jurisdiction ofIncorporation or Organization)
    
    001-31524(Commission File Number)
    
    37-1446709(I.R.S. EmployerIdentification No.)12865 Pointe Del MarSuite 200Del Mar, California
(Address of Principal Executive Offices)
    
    
    
    92014(Zip Code)
 (858) 481-8500
(Registrants Telephone Number, Including Area Code) Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the
filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions:  o
    Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)o
    Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)o
    Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))o
    Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))




---



##### 



Item 2.02. Results of Operations and Financial Condition. On February 15, 2005, Brookfield Homes Corporation issued a press release announcing its
earnings and results of operations for the quarter and year ended
December 31, 2004 and 2005 earnings guidance. A copy of the
press release is attached hereto as Exhibit 99.1. Item 9.01. Financial Statements and Exhibits.  (c)
    Exhibits:  99.1
    Press Release issued by Brookfield Homes Corporation on February 15, 2005. 1




---



##### 



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 hereunto duly authorized. Date: February 17, 2005 BROOKFIELD HOMES CORPORATIONBy:
    /s/ PAUL G. KERRIGANPaul G. KerriganExecutive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
and Treasurer 2




---



##### 



EXHIBIT INDEX Exhibit Number
    
    Exhibit99.1
    
    
    Press Release issued by Brookfield Homes Corporation on February 15, 2005.
#### State v. Leyva

Case below: 181 N.C. App. 491

No. 131P07

1. Def’s NOA Based Upon a Constitutional Question (COA06-354)

2. AG’s Motion to Dismiss Appeal

3. Defs PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31

1.-

2. Allowed 08/23/07

3. Denied 08/23/07
|   | · | The                Covered Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)                or                15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;                and                    |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                     |
|   | · | The                information contained in the Covered Report fairly presents, in all                material respects, the financial condition and results of operations                of                the Company. |

| Date:  November                3, 2006 | /s/ John                F.                Sipics                                    |
|--------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                             | John                F. SipicsPresident                PPL                Electric Utilities Corporation                                                                                                                                                                 |
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JUVENILE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-30634.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 16, 2006.*

Filed Oct. 23, 2006.

Craig W. Haller, Esq., USGF — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Great Falls, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Evangelo Arvanetes, Esq., FDMT— Federal Defenders Of Montana, Great Falls, MT, for Defendani>-Appellant.

Before: T.G. NELSON, W. FLETCHER, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Juvenile appeals from the 24-month sentence imposed upon the revocation of his juvenile supervised release. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Appellant contends that the district court erred by imposing a sentence that exceeded the sentencing range recommended by Chapter 7 of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines because the sentence did not comport with the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Additionally, he contends that his sentence violated the Congressional policy considerations of the Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act. We disagree.

A review of the record indicates that the district court considered the Chapter 7 policy statements before revoking appellant’s supervised release. Because the district court considered the Chapter 7 policy statements, it was then free to reject the suggested sentencing range of 5-11 months. See *United States v. Tadeo,*222 F.3d 623, 625-26 (9th Cir.2000). Also, appellant’s sentence comports with the requirements set forth in Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act. *See*18 U.S.C. § 5037(d)(5).

We conclude that appellant’s sentence is not unreasonable. *See United States v. Plouffe,*445 F.3d 1126,1131 (9th Cir.2006).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 22-2113

___________________________

United States of America,

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee,

v.

Dana Ray Day, Jr.,

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant.

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Missouri - Jefferson City

 ____________

 Submitted: November 30, 2022

Filed: December 5, 2022

[Unpublished]

____________

Before COLLOTON, GRUENDER, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Dana Day, Jr. appeals after a jury found him guilty of a firearm offense, and the

district court1

 sentenced him to 120 months in prison. His counsel has moved to

1

The Honorable Stephen R. Bough, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.
withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

challenging the admission of certain evidence at trial and the reasonableness of the

sentence. 

We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting

photographs of the firearm and its markings, which showed where it was

manufactured, see United States v. Buchanan, 604 F.3d 517, 521-23 (8th Cir. 2010);

United States v. Stockton, 968 F.2d 715, 719 (8th Cir. 1992), or the investigator’s

expert testimony as to the firearm markings, see Fed. R. Evid. 703; United States v.

Carter, 270 F.3d 731, 735 (8th Cir. 2001); United States v. Thody, 978 F.2d 625,

630-31 (10th Cir. 1992). In any event, the investigator confirmed through

independent evidence that the gun had been in interstate commerce. See Buchanan,

604 F.3d at 523-24.

Day’s sentence was not unreasonable, as there is no indication that the court

overlooked a relevant factor, gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant

factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing the relevant factors. See

United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc); see also

United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014).

We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75 (1988), and we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we

affirm, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

-2-
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                      5
<MULTIPLIER>                   1,000

       

<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                   DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                         93,748
<SECURITIES>                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                  183,172
<ALLOWANCES>                   3,487
<INVENTORY>                    161,874
<CURRENT-ASSETS>               448,516
<PP&E>                         363,385
<DEPRECIATION>                 224,088
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                 670,920
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>          112,093
<BONDS>                        41,881
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>          0
<PREFERRED>                    0
<COMMON>                       1,027
<OTHER-SE>                     499,291
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>   670,920
<SALES>                        231,136
<TOTAL-REVENUES>               231,136
<CGS>                          141,539
<TOTAL-COSTS>                  141,539
<OTHER-EXPENSES>               45,508
<LOSS-PROVISION>               166
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>             1,614
<INCOME-PRETAX>                42,932
<INCOME-TAX>                   14,598
<INCOME-CONTINUING>            28,334
<DISCONTINUED>                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                0
<CHANGES>                      0
<NET-INCOME>                   28,334
<EPS-PRIMARY>                  0.32
<EPS-DILUTED>                  0.32


        

</TABLE>
ex-10.25

 EXHIBIT 10.25
 

 KEY LINK ASSETS CORP.
 NOTE PAYABLE
 $975
 

 June 24, 2015
 Chicago, Illinois
 

 FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned, Key Link Assets Corp., a Delaware corporation (“Maker”) promises to pay to the order of Shawn Clark, together with any successors or assigns (collectively, the "Holder"), the principal sum of Nine Hundred and Seventy-Five Dollars  (US $975). The Note is non-interest bearing and bears no collateral.
 

 The Note will be paid in full on June 30, 2017. The Company may redeem the Notes in part, or in full, prior to the due date of the Note. 
 

 Payments of principal shall be made at the place that Holder from time to time shall direct in writing, or, in the absence of direction, at 216 South Jefferson Street, Suite LL, Chicago, Illinois 60661.
 

 Upon a default by the undersigned to make any payment due hereunder, and continuing for five (5) calendar days after notice has been given to the undersigned, and at the option of the Holder, all of the unpaid indebtedness evidenced by this Note shall become immediately due and payable and shall accrue interest at the highest rate of interest then permitted by law.
 

 This Note is submitted by the undersigned to the Holder in Chicago, Illinois and shall be deemed to have been made thereat. This Note shall be governed and controlled by the laws of the State of Illinois as to interpretation, enforcement, validity, construction, effect, choice of law, and in all other respects.
 

 To induce the Holder to accept this Note, the undersigned irrevocably agrees that, subject to the Holder's sole and absolute election, all actions and proceedings in any way, manner or respect arising out of or from or related to this Note shall be litigated in courts having situs within the County of Cook, State of Illinois, the undersigned hereby covenants and submits to the jurisdiction of any local, state or federal court located within said county and state.
 

 Any notice, designation, demand, consent or request required herein to be given or to be served upon the undersigned by the Holder shall be deemed to have been given or served upon mailing, if addressed to the undersigned at 216 South Jefferson Street, Suite LL, Chicago, Illinois 60661, or upon actual receipt by the undersigned.
  
 In the event of default hereunder, the undersigned agrees to pay all expenses, including, without limitation, attorney fees, incurred by the Holder in endeavoring to enforce the rights of Holder hereunder.
 

 Key Link Assets Corp.
 

 

 By: /s/ Shawn Clark
       Shawn Clark, Chief Executive Officer
Opinion issued September 27 , 201 2

In The 

## Court of Appeals
For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01

- 12

- 00734

- CV

——————————— JENNIFER ELAINE TOWNES , Appellant

V. WAYLON PERRY TOWNES , Appellee

On Appeal from the 300 th District Court Brazoria County, Texas Trial Court Ca u se No. 64803

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant has filed an unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal. No opinion has issued. Accordingly, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See T EX

. R.

A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(1)

. We dismiss all other pending motions as moot.2 PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Bland and Huddle

.
---



EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATIONS OF
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Arthur D. Levinson, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Genentech, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report of Genentech, Inc. on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Genentech, Inc.





| | By:                | /s/ ARTHUR D. LEVINSON                                           | 
| | ------------------ | ---------------------------------------------------------------- | 
| |                    |                                                                  | 
| | Name:
Title:
Date: | Arthur D. Levinson, Ph.D.
Chief Executive Officer
August 2, 2005 | 

I, David A. Ebersman, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Genentech, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report of Genentech, Inc. on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Genentech, Inc.





| | By:                | /s/ DAVID A. EBERSMAN                                                                  | 
| | ------------------ | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
| |                    |                                                                                        | 
| | Name:
Title:
Date: | David A. Ebersman
Senior Vice President and 
   Chief Financial Officer
August 2, 2005 | 

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998             JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          47,167                       0
<SECURITIES>                                       282                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  165,596                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (7,489)                      0
<INVENTORY>                                     78,716                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               312,398                       0
<PP&E>                                         261,330                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                                (131,630)                      0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 541,951                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          128,678                       0
<BONDS>                                        150,818                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                           212                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     256,600                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   541,951                       0
<SALES>                                        145,817                 162,934
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               288,323                 293,652
<CGS>                                           97,558                 109,145
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  205,054                 205,170
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,200                  13,525
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,056                   3,636
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 27,552                  32,235
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,919                  11,605
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             17,633                  20,630
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    17,633                  20,630
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.83                    0.98
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.82                    0.94
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 23.1**
**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**
We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.333-7366 and 33-25333 of Nortel Networks Corporation on Form S-8 of our reportdated June 25, 2004, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 11-K of the NortelNetworks Long-Term Investment Plan for the year ended December 31, 2003.
/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
Nashville, Tennessee
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF JOSE  CARABALLO FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS § § No. 27 , 201 5 § §

Submitted: January 30, 2015 Decided: February 12, 2015

Before HOLLAND , VALIHURA , and VAUGHN , Justice s.
O R D E R

This 12 th day of February 2015 , upon consideration of Jose 

Caraballo’s petition for a writ of mandamus and the State’s answer and

motion to dismiss , it appears to the Court that:
(1) The Superior Court docket reflects that Caraballo was arrested on April 3 , 20 14 on a charge of Robbery in the First Degree (Cr. ID
1404001994) . He filed a motion to dismiss the charge, which was denied as moot after the grand jury returned an indictment against him in June 2014.

Final case review was h eld in the Superior Court in November 2014, but a trial date was deferred pending defense counsel’s notification to the court of the need for a hearing to determine Caraballo’s competency to stand trial

. Thereafter, defense counsel notified the court by l etter that Caraballo wished to terminate their attorney

- client relationship . On January 29, 2015, the2

Superior Court denied counsel’s letter request pending the filing of a formal

motion to withdraw.
(2) Caraballo filed his petition for a writ of mandamus in this Court on January 22, 2015. Caraballo requests this Court to dismiss the charges against him because of inconsistencies in the witnesses’ statements to the police. The State has moved to dismiss Caraballo ’s petition on the ground

that this Court lacks original jurisdiction to order the requested relief.
(3) We agree. This Court has authority to issue a writ of mandamus only when the petitioner can demonstrate a clear right to the performance of a duty, no other adequate remedy is available, and t he trial court arbitrarily failed or refused to perform its duty. 1 A writ of mandamus is inappropriate to challenge the legality of Caraballo ’s arrest and indictment, which are issues that are properly reviewable on appeal. 2

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERE D that Caraballo ’s petition is hereby DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihura Justice

1 In re Bordley , 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988).

2 In re Evans , 2007 WL 2111090 (Del. July 24, 2007)

.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATON EXTRACTED FROM COMPANY'S
10-Q/A FILED JUNE 6, 1997 WITH SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                              APR-1-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                      20,871,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               24,723,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                10,506,000
<INVENTORY>                                    356,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            14,573,000
<PP&E>                                       2,163,500
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,175,466
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              36,916,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,203,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        2,078,000
<PREFERRED>                                    174,000
<COMMON>                                       293,000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                36,916,000
<SALES>                                      1,659,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,659,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           (1,382,000)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              22,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (913,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (913,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (913,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.03)
        

</TABLE>
#### Burgin v. Owen

Case below: 181 N.C. App. 511

No. 189P07

1. Pit’s NOA (Dissent) (COA06-450)

2. Pit’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31

1. Dismissed 05/18/07

2. Dismissed 05/18/07