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

    <ARTICLE>                         5

    <S>                               <C>
    <PERIOD-TYPE>                     3-MOS
    <FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-2000
    <PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-2000
    <PERIOD-END>                            MAR-31-2000
    <CASH>                                            0
    <SECURITIES>                                      0
    <RECEIVABLES>                                     0
    <ALLOWANCES>                                      0
    <INVENTORY>                                       0
    <CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  0
    <PP&E>                                            0
    <DEPRECIATION>                                    0
    <TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    0
    <CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             0
    <BONDS>                                           0
    <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
    <PREFERRED>                                       0
    <COMMON>                                          0
    <OTHER-SE>                                  2383607
    <TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      0
    <SALES>                                           0
    <TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  0
    <CGS>                                             0
    <TOTAL-COSTS>                                     0
    <OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  0
    <LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
    <INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                0
    <INCOME-PRETAX>                                   0
    <INCOME-TAX>                                      0
    <INCOME-CONTINUING>                               0
    <DISCONTINUED>                                    0
    <EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
    <CHANGES>                                         0
    <NET-INCOME>                                      0
    <EPS-BASIC>                                     0
    <EPS-DILUTED>                                     0


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT
13.1
   CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
906 OF THE U.S. SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  The
certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with the Annual
Report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 (the “Report”)
for the purposes of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Section 1350 of
Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.
  I,
Wilson Amaral de Oliveira,Chief Executive Officer of Gafisa S.A., certify that, to the best of my
knowledge:
  ·
              the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and
  ·
              the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the
      Company.
  Date:
March 10, 2010
 
  By:
              /s/ Wilson Amaral de
      OliveiraName:
              Wilson Amaral de
      OliveiraTitle:
              Chief Executive
      Officer
----

|   |                          |                                      |
|--------|-------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|
|   | LaSalle      Bank N.A.        |
|   | 135      South LaSalle Street |
|   | Suite      1625               |
|   |                          | Chicago,      IL 60603                    |
|   |                          |                                      |
|   |                          |                                      |
|   |                          | Global      Securities and Trust Services |

| 1.   | A      review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the preceding      calendar year and of      the performance of the Master Servicer under the Agreement has been made      under my supervision;      and |
|----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.   | To      the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has      fulfilled all its      obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout such      year or a portion      thereof. |
|----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | Date: March 12, 2008                                      |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                      |
|   | LaSalle      Bank National Association, as MasterServicer |
|   |                                                      |
|   | By: /s/ Tammy Spriggs                                     |
|   |                                                      |
|   | Name: Tammy      Spriggs                                  |
|   | Title:        First Vice President              |

----
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

HIGINIO CAUSSE BARRERA,

Appellant, vs. THE STATE OF NEVADA,

Respondent. HIGINIO CAUSSE BARRERA,

Appellant, vs. THE STATE OF NEVADA,

Respondent. HIGINIO CAUSSE BARRERA,

Appellant, vs. THE STATE OF NEVADA,

Respondent. No. 69428

No. 69514

No. 69515 

# FILED FEB 0 1 2016

ORDER DISMISSING APPEALS 

### These are pro se appeals from district court orders denying a motion for rehearing, a motion to stop time to exhaust all claims, and a motion to appoint counsel. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Jennifer P. Togliatti, Judge.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA
(0) 1947A 1

1 a 

# Re 

# -0M75Douglas Because no statute or court rule permits an appeal from the aforementioned orders, we lack jurisdiction. Castillo v. State, 106 Nev. 349, 352, 792 P.2d 1133, 1135 (1990). Accordingly, we

ORDER these appeals DISMISSED.'

cc: Hon. Jennifer P. Togliatti, District Judge Higinio Causse Barrera Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

'In light of this order, the pro se motion filed on January 21, 2016, is denied as moot.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA
(0) 1947A es. 2
#### Leon R. Koziol, Appellant, v Kelly Hawse Koziol, Respondent.

Decided September 8, 2009

Reported below, 60 AD3d 1435 (Appeal No. 3).

Appeal from order of the Appellate Division affirming so much of an order of Supreme Court as denied appellant’s motion to amend the caption, dismissed upon the ground that such order does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
EXHIBIT 10.14(v)


AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT


This amendment (“Amendment”) to the VALUE ADDED
REMARKETING AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) dated March 30, 1989, is entered into and
effective this 31st day of May 2007, (“Effective Date”) by and between
InterSystems Corporation (“ISC”) a Massachusetts corporation located at One
Memorial Drive, Cambridge, MA 02142 and Amendment, a Pennsylvania corporation
located at 601 Lee Road, Chesterbrook Corporate Center, Wayne, PA 19087.


WITNESSETH:


WHEREAS, ISC and MEDecision did enter into that certain
Agreement; and


WHEREAS, The Agreement has expired; and


WHEREAS, The parties wish to extend the term of the Agreement;
and


WHEREAS, The parties wish to modify some of the terms of the
Agreement;


NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises made in this
Amendment, the parties agree and acknowledge as follows:


1.                                       The
effective date of the Agreement shall be the Effective Date herein with a five
(5) year term;


2.                                       The
first sentence of Clause 2(a) shall now read, “Subject to the terms and
conditions hereinafter set forth, InterSystems hereby grants to the VAR, during
the Term, the nonexclusive right, solely in
connection with VAR’s software, to sublicense the Licensed Software
to Users who purchase, lease, or license Products from the VAR.


3.                                       Reference
to the Master Maintenance Agreement shall be replaced with reference to the
terms and conditions in the then current price list.


4.                                       Reference
to license fees or other fees shall be replaced with reference to the then
current price list.


5.                                       Notices
sent out according to clause 19 for MEDecision shall be sent to:

MEDecision, Inc.

601 Lee Road

Chesterbrook. Corporate Center

Wayne, PA 19087

Attention: Chief Financial Officer


 













 


All other terms
and conditions not specifically modified herein, shall remain in full force and
effect.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the
parties hereby agree to this Amendment as of the first date written above.


	
  InterSystems Corporation

  	
   

  	
  MEDecision, Inc.

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  

  	
  /s/ Jack
  Machezas 

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  /s/ John Capobianco 

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Signature

  	
   

  
	
  Signature

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  5/31/07 

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  5/30/2007 

  	
   

  
	
  Date

  	
   

  	
  Date

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Jack Machezas 

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  John Capobianco 

  	
   

  
	
  Name

  	
   

  	
  Name

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Director of
  Finance 

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  President 

  	
   

  
	
  Title

  	
   

  	
  Title

  	
   

  
							



 


 



 2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SUDAN R. JONES,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

DEBRA DEXTER,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 13-56527

D.C. No. 2:08-cv-00408-CBMPLA

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Consuelo B. Marshall, Senior District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 7, 2015** 

San Francisco, California

Before: D.W. NELSON, CANBY, and NOONAN, Circuit Judges.

Sudan Jones appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his habeas petition

challenging his convictions for two counts of rape and two counts of lewd acts

upon a child. Jones claims he received ineffective assistance of counsel (“IAC”)

FILED

JUL 09 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
because his trial counsel failed to adequately investigate and present his alibi

defense, discouraged him from testifying, and presented an inadequate medical

defense. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo a

district court’s denial of a habeas petition, Stanley v. Cullen, 633 F.3d 852, 859

(9th Cir. 2011), and we affirm.

Based on a careful review of the record, we conclude Jones’s counsel’s

performance was not constitutionally deficient. See Strickland v. Washington, 466

U.S. 668, 687 (1984). Even assuming Jones’s counsel was deficient, Jones has not

shown the result of the proceedings would have differed but for his counsel’s

unprofessional errors. See id. at 694. The evidence against Jones at trial, including

the testimony of Sade M., Andrea Mosley, Samuel Mosley, Makisha Mosley, Ida

Jordan, Jasmine Stiger, and Dr. Ticson, was compelling. Because “fairminded

jurists could disagree,” Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770, 786 (2011), as to

whether Jones’s counsel’s alleged deficiencies “[did] not amount to prejudicial

ineffective assistance of counsel,” the California Court of Appeal reasonably

rejected Jones’s IAC claim. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697.

AFFIRMED.

2
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jennie Fusco, Appellant.

[961 NYS2d 925]

Garry, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Washington County (McKeighan, J.), rendered February 18, 2011, convicting defendant upon her plea of guilty of the crime of grand larceny in the third degree.

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of grand larceny in the third degree in satisfaction of various charges against her, and waived her right to appeal. County Court sentenced her, as a second felony offender, to a prison term of IV2 to 3 years, to run concurrently with a sentence she was already serving (see *generally People v Fusco,*91 AD3d 985 [2012]; *People v Fusco,*91 AD3d 984 [2012]). Defendant appeals from this judgment of conviction.

Thereafter, County Court learned that the sentence imposed was illegal, and that it had been obliged to impose an indeterminate prison sentence of at least 2 to 4 years *(see*Penal Law §§ 70.06 [3] [d]; [4]; 155.35). Defendant was accordingly summoned and, with her consent, County Court amended the judgment of conviction by reducing her conviction to the class E felony of attempted grand larceny in the third degree *(see*Penal Law §§ 70.06 [3] [e]; 110.05 [6]). No notice of appeal from the amended judgment of conviction appears in the record. The amended judgment went beyond resentencing defendant, altering the very crime for which she was convicted *(compare People v Brown,*47 AD2d 567, 567 [1975]). Accordingly, the original judgment was vacated, and the sentence therefrom superseded; lacking notice of an appeal from the amended judgment, this appeal from the original judgment must be dismissed *(see*CPL 450.30; *People v Gannon,*2 AD3d 1214, 1214 [2003]; *People v Proctor,*76 AD2d 756, 756 [1980]).

*1149Peters, EJ., Spain and Egan Jr., JJ., concur.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2585 

To require the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to establish an air tour management plan for certain areas of Hawaii, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 13, 2023 

Mr. CASE (for himself and Ms. TOKUDA) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To require the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to establish an air tour management plan for 

certain areas of Hawaii, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Hawaii Air Tour Man5 agement Act of 2023’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AIR TOUR MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR CERTAIN 

7 AREAS OF HAWAII. 

8 (a) AIR TOUR MANAGEMENT PLAN.— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2585 IH

1 (1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding section 

2 40128 of title 49, United States Code, subject to 

3 paragraph (2), not later than 2 years after the date 

4 of enactment of this section, the Administrator of 

5 the Federal Aviation Administration, in consultation 

6 with the Governor of Hawaii, shall establish an air 

7 tour management plan for any area within the State 

8 of Hawaii that is not located within the National 

9 Park System. 

10 (2) REQUIREMENTS.—The Administrator of the 

11 Federal Aviation Administration shall enter into an 

12 agreement with the Governor of Hawaii to establish 

13 the contents of the plan required by paragraph (1), 

14 the procedure for establishing such plan (including 

15 with respect to any amendments to the plan), and 

16 the responsibilities of each party to such agreement 

17 in carrying out the plan. 

18 (b) INTERIM AUTHORITY.—Until the date on which 

19 the air tour management plan is established under sub20 section (a), the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Ad21 ministration may grant an air tour operator operating in 

22 an area within the State of Hawaii that is not located 

23 within the National Park System interim operating au24 thority for that area. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2585 IH

1 (c) NON-APPLICATION OF THE APA.—The provisions 

2 of subchapter II of chapter 5, and chapter 7, of title 5, 

3 United States Code (commonly known as the ‘‘Administra4 tive Procedure Act’’) shall not apply to the establishment 

5 of an air tour management plan under this section. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER DEMOND BRAGGS, :

 :

Plaintiff, :

 :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 05-0469-BH-M

 :

SHERIFF LARRY JOHNSTON, :

et al., :

 :

Defendants. :

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 Report and

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(B) is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court. It

is ORDERED that this action be and is hereby DISMISSED with

prejudice for failure to prosecute and to obey the Court's

Order.

DONE this 1st day of August, 2006.

 s/ W. B. Hand 

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00469-BH-M Document 25 Filed 08/01/06 Page 1 of 1
National Gallery of Art

Department of Image Collections

The Graphicstudio Documentary Collection 

Pictured Artist Inventory List

(All items black-and-white photographs unless otherwise noted)

 Artist Last Name Number of Items Notes

Acconci, Vito

Ahern, Vincent

Amory, Tim

Arakawa, Shusaku

Bailey, Oscar

Brown, Doug

Brown, Marcia

Burnet, Greg

Chia, Sandro

Clinton, Paul

Close, Chuck

Conroy, Nick

Dine, Jim

Elias, Wendy

Elliott, Ken

Erskine, Eleanor

Fetscher, Suzanne

Foy, Patrick

Friedlander, Lee

Glier, Michael

Gordy, Robert

Harrigan, Michael

Hennessy, Mary Susan

Holoubek, Alan

Holt, Eric

Holzer, George

Jordan, Liz

Juristo, Julio

Juristo, Michelle

Karnatz, Richard

Krushenick, Nicholas

Leslie, Alfred

Lichtenstein, Dorothy

Lichtenstein, Roy

Mapplethorpe, Robert

Martin, John

Medel, Kelly

Metcalf, Jesse

Parsons, Jeff

Pearlstein, Philip

Pizzuto, Johntimothy

Pruitt, Tom

Ramos, Mel

Rauschenberg, Robert

Ringness, Charles

Robinson, Bill

Rosenquist, James

Ruscha, Ed

Sacilotto, Deli

Saff, Donald

Schapiro, Miriam

Schwable, Conrad

Stack, Dan

Stock, Mark

Thomas, Stephen

Van Brunt, Terry

Vontillius, Eric

Witkin, Joel-Peter

Wujcik, Theo

7

1

4

2

2

1

10

9

7

5

4

13

19

2

12

5

3

35

3

1

3

17

4

30

1

7

3

9

7

3

4

9

2

11

8

1

6

1

1

19

6

28

1

6

14

1

4

1

20

20

2

2

6

2

1

1

6

2

2
#### In the Matter of Civil Service Technical Guild, Local 375, AFSCME, Appellant, v City of New York et al., Respondents.

[872 NYS2d 442]

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol R. Edmead, J.), entered on or about August 29, 2007, which denied petitioner labor union’s application pursuant to Civil Service Law § 209-a (5) and CFLR article 78 for preliminary injunctive relief enjoining respondent City from implementing a new timekeeping system pending a final determination by respondent Board of Collective Bargaining of improper employer practice charges filed by the union, and granted the City’s cross motion to dismiss the petition in its entirety, unanimously dismissed as moot and Supreme Court’s order vacated, without costs.

The union effectively concedes that its appeal has been rendered moot by the Board’s final decision on the underlying improper practice charges (Civil Service Law § 209-a [5] [d]), but represents in its brief that it “nonetheless assumed the cost of an appeal because of the disproportionate precedential value this erroneous opinion will have.” As the City’s response to the prospect of a mootness dismissal is simply to defer to our discretion to vacate the underlying order “in order to prevent [it] . . . from spawning any legal consequences or precedent” *(Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne,*50 NY2d 707, 718 [1980]), we vacate Supreme Court’s order. Concur—Saxe, J.E, Friedman, Nardelli, Sweeny and DeGrasse, JJ. *[See*2007 NY Slip Op 32728(U).]
| (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. |
|-----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/      David Vozick |                            |
|-----------------------|---------------------------------|
|                  | David      Vozick               |   |
|                  | Chairman      of the Board      |   |
|                  | Co-Chief      Executive Officer |   |
|                  |                            |   |
| May      15, 2008     |                            |
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas September 16, 2022 No. 04-22-00313-CV IN THE INTEREST OF G.K.T. , a Child From the 285th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021PA00800 Honorable Kimberly Burley, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R Appellee’s motion for leave to file an amended brief is GRANTED. The amended brief was filed on September 15, 2022. It is so ORDERED on September 16, 2022. PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:__________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, CLERK OF COURT
#### Rodgers v. Ingham

Case below: 179 N.C. App. 864

No. 602P06

1. Pit’s NOA Based Upon a Constitutional Question (COA05-1568)

2. Def’s (Gamble) Motion to Dismiss Appeal

3. Pit’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31

1. _

2. Allowed 01/25/07

3. Denied 01/25/07
#### In the Matter of General Electric Company, Appellant, v Assessor of the Town of Rotterdam et al., Respondents. (And Another Related Proceeding.)

Submitted January 12, 2009;

decided February 24, 2009

Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal denied *[see*11 NY3d 711 (2008)].

Chief Judge Lippman and Judge Read taking no part.
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 32(a)
                      18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION


I hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and
belief, that the accompanying Form 10-QSB/A of Spectrum Laboratories, Inc., (the
"Company") for the quarterly period ended March 26, 2005 fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d); and that the information contained in this Form
10-QSB/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.

Dated: September 19, 2005



/s/ Roy T. Eddleman
---------------------------
Roy T. Eddleman
Chief Executive Officer
Spectrum Laboratories, Inc.




                                  EXHIBIT 32(b)
                      18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION


I hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and
belief, that the accompanying Form 10-QSB/A of Spectrum Laboratories, Inc., (the
"Company") for the quarterly period ended March 26, 2005 fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d); and that the information contained in this Form
10-QSB/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.

Dated: September 19, 2005



/s/ Brian A. Watts
---------------------------
Brian A. Watts
Chief Financial Officer
Spectrum Laboratories, Inc.