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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       1,081,119
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  859,101
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,769,390
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,759,104
<PP&E>                                       1,209,871
<DEPRECIATION>                                 876,163
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,201,156
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          632,502
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    10,249,978
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,201,156
<SALES>                                      3,914,171
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,914,171
<CGS>                                        2,240,314
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,512,341
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (598,170)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (598,170)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
663 A.2d 638

#### IN THE MATTER OF WILLIAM E. AGRAIT, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

September 12, 1995.

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed its decision with the Court on June 29,1995, recommending that a letter of admonition be issued to WILLIAM E. AGRAIT of NEWARK, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1984, for violation of *RPC*1.15(a) (negligent misappropriation of client trust funds) and *RPC*1.15(d) (failure to comply with the recordkeeping requirements of *Rule*1:21-6), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that the Disciplinary Review Board is authorized to issue a letter of admonition to respondent; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for appropriate administrative costs incurred in the prosecution of this matter.
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 31, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-50771

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

ANTHONY TYRONE PERKINS

Defendant - Appellant

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. A-03-CR-72-ALL-SS

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

Before KING, Chief Judge, and DAVIS and BARKSDALE, Circuit

Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Anthony Tyrone Perkins appeals his jury conviction and

sentence for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). 

Perkins first contends that the district court abused its

discretion when it dismissed the original indictment without

prejudice for violations of the Speedy Trial Act. The district

court properly considered the statutory factors of 18 U.S.C. 
No. 03-50771

-2-

§ 3162(a)(2), and its supporting factual findings were not

clearly in error. See United States v. Taylor, 487 U.S. 326, 337

(1988). Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its

discretion in dismissing the original indictment without

prejudice and in permitting reindictment. See United States v.

Blevins, 142 F.3d 223, 224 (5th Cir. 1998). 

Perkins also contends that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)

unconstitutionally extends federal power to reach firearm

possession that does not substantially affect interstate

commerce. He concedes that this argument is foreclosed by

circuit precedent, and he raises it to preserve it for possible

Supreme Court review. 

The Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Lopez, 514

U.S. 549 (1995) did not invalidate 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). See

United States v. Rawls, 85 F.3d 240, 242 (5th Cir. 1996). 

Moreover, evidence that the firearm Perkins possessed was not

manufactured in Texas is sufficient to maintain a 18 U.S.C.

§ 922(g)(1) conviction. See United States v. Daugherty, 264 F.3d

513, 518 & n.12 (5th Cir. 2001). 

Therefore, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 23.1





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM











We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (No. 333-174076, 333-188847, 333-188849, 333-182505, 333-181589, 333-195260 and 333199517), Form S-3MEF (No. 333-185526) and Form S-8 (No. 333-151154, 333-153847, 333-175763, 333-174819, 333-183300, 333-182578 and 333-190540) of our report dated March 5, 2015, relating to the consolidated financial statements of Galena Biopharma, Inc., and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Galena Biopharma, Inc., appearing in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2014.





/s/ Moss Adams





Portland, Oregon


March 5, 2015
<SEQUENCE>13

                                  EXHIBIT 32.a


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

                                 18 U.S.C. 1350,

                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Regent Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2003, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, David A. Nelson, in my capacity as Chief Executive Officer and Principal
Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

                  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 and results of
                  operations of the Company.


                                        /S/ DAVID A. NELSON
                                        -------------------
Date: September 13, 2005
                                        David A. Nelson,
                                        Chief Executive Officer and Principal
                                        Accounting Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          15,919
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,349
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,907
<INVENTORY>                                      3,817
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                28,652
<PP&E>                                          24,512
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,091
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 124,619
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           25,366
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           40,700     
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                     (7,598)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   124,619
<SALES>                                          1,210
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                10,913
<CGS>                                            1,210
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,008
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,257
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   243
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,435
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,787)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,787)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,787)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.74)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.74)
        


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Priest Jabari GORDON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-20273

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 25, 2006.

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

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

Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Priest Jabari Gordon on appeal from the revocation of his probation has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as is required by *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Gordon has not responded to counsel’s motion.

Our independent review of the brief filed by counsel and of the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities, and the appeal is DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
To the Shareholders and Board of Directorsof Sears, Roebuck and Co.
We have made a review, in accordance with standards established by theAmerican Institute of Certified Public Accountants, of the unaudited interimcondensed consolidated financial information of Sears, Roebuck and Co.for the 13-week periods ended March 31, 2001 and April 1, 2000, as indicatedin our report dated May 4, 2001; because we did not perform an audit, weexpressed no opinion on that information.
We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included inyour Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the 13-week period ended March 31,2001, is incorporated by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 2-64879,2-80037, 33-18081, 33-23793, 33-41485, 33-43459, 33-45479, 33-55825, 33-58851,33-64345, 333-8141, 333-38131, and 333-52056 of Sears, Roebuck and Co.;Registration Statement Nos. 33-58139, 33-64215, 33-9817, 333-30879 and333-62847 of Sears, Roebuck and Co. and Sears Roebuck Acceptance Corp.;Registration Statement Nos. 33-64775, 333-18591, and 333-43309 of Sears,Roebuck and Co. and Sears, Roebuck and Co. Deferred Compensation Plan;Registration Statement Nos. 33-57205, 333-11973, 333-53149, 333-92501,and 333-56272 of Sears, Roebuck and Co. and the Sears 401(k) Profit SharingPlan (formerly, The Savings and Profit Sharing Fund of Sears Employees);and Registration Statement No. 33-44671 of Sears, Roebuck and Co. and SearsDC Corp.
We are also aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c)under the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the RegistrationStatement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared orcertified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of thatAct.   
/s/Deloitte & Touche LLPChicago, IllinoisMay 4, 2001
#### Bailey *et al. v.*Thornton.

Where, during the term at which a case was tried, a motion fora new-trial, with an unapproved brief of evidence attached, was handed to the judge, who in open court approved the grounds of the motion, granted a rule *nisi,*which was duly served, and also passed an order setting the hearing of the motion at a future time and allowing movant until then to have the brief of evidence approved, which was afterwards done, and the motion, after being several times continued, was finally heard on the merits, counsel for both sides appearing, and there being no motion to dismiss, the court reserving its decision and giving respondent’s counsel leave to file an additional brief upon a question of law involved, it was error in the court, upon a mere suggestion contained in this brief, to dismiss the motion simply because it and the brief of evidence were not marked filed in office by the clerk. Under the facts stated, the actual filing in the clerk’s office was waived, and the motion should have been decided on its merits. *Cook*v. *Childers,*this term, *ante.*

April 30, 1894.

Argued at the last term.

Motion for new trial. Before Judge Smith. Wilcox superior court. March term, 1893.

W. L. Grice and E. H. Williams, for plaintiffs in error. Busbee & Crum, *contra.*

*Judgment reversed.*
#### Jones *et al. v.*Kendrick.

1. One .who gives to a constable by whom personal property has been duly seized under an execution against a third person, a bond for the-production of such property at the time and place of sale, and in consequence of so doing is intrusted by the constable with the possession of the property, cannot, when sued upon the bond for a breach of its condition, set up title in himself to the property and thereby defeat the action. He and his sureties are estopped ■ from contesting the constable’s title.

•2. A recital in the bond that the principal obligor claimed the property would indicate that he intended to interpose a statutory claim with a view to making an issue with the plaintiff in execution as to the title, but no such claim having been in fact interposed, the *646bond is to be treated as a voluntary bond executed and delivered by a bailee to bis bailor. *Judgment affirmed.*

July 23, 1894.

Action on forthcoming bond. Before Judge Roney. Taliaferro superior court. August term, 1893.

Horace M. Holden, for plaintiffs in error.

John W. Hixon, *contra.*

Kendrick, a constable, levied on a bale of cotton as the property of Amos Perkins, under an execution in favor of Richards. Thereupon Jones as principal, and Duckworth as security, gave to Kendrick a bond conditioned for the production of the property at the time and place of sale, provided it should be found subject to the execution. The bond recited that the cotton was claimed by Jones. Defendants admitted at the trial that there had been a breach of the bond, but contended that they could defend the suit as freely as if a claim had been regularly filed; and introdued testimony that Amos Perkins never had any interest in the cotton, which was raised by Rainey Perkins on land rented from Jones and delivered to him in part payment of rent. But the court held the defendants estopped from so setting up title to the cotton.
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 21-3777

___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v. Samuel W. Melson lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City

____________ Submitted: April 12, 2022 Filed: April 14, 2022 [Unpublished]

____________ Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. After revoking his supervised release, the district court 1 sentenced Samuel W. Melson to 24 months’ imprisonment with no supervised release to follow. Defense

1 The Honorable Beth Phillips, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri.counsel had recommended an upward variance and the Government an even larger

upward variance, and the district court imposed a sentence between the two. Melson argues that the sentence was substantively unreasonable because his violations did not warrant a substantial upward variance and the district court relied upon an improper or irrelevant sentencing factor in imposing the sentence. Upon careful review, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Melson’s sentence. See United States v. Isler , 983 F.3d 335, 344 (8th Cir. 2020) (applying deferential abuse-of-discretion standard to claim of substantive unreasonableness, including claim that court gave significant weight to improper and irrelevant factor). The record shows that, between June 2018, when Melson’s supervised release commenced, and December 2021, when it was finally revoked, Melson’s probation officer filed seven violation reports. At the hearing on the seventh violation report--the one at issue here--the district court considered Melson’s overall conduct on supervision, the nature and circumstances of his violations, mitigating factors, and the parties’ arguments. The court explicitly clarified that the upward variance was “based upon Mr. Melson’s personal history and characteristics, and also the nature and circumstances of his repeated violations and the flagrant nature of his violations.” On this record, we cannot conclude that the district court gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor or that the sentence was otherwise unreasonable. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a), 3583(e)(3); United States v. Clark , 998 F.3d 363, 367, 369-70 (8th Cir. 2021) (affirming the substantive reasonableness of an upward variance from a guidelines range of 6 to 12 months’ imprisonment to a sentence of 24 months’ imprisonment following the revocation of the defendant’s supervised release after multiple violations); United States v. Hall , 931 F.3d 694, 697 (8th Cir. 2019) (finding no substantive error in giving insignificant weight to excluded sentencing factor where district court clearly considered permissible factors for revocation sentence).

-2-Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

-3-
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> UT
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      221,353
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                      3,778
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                          49,453
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        42,295
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                   4,320
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 321,199
<COMMON>                                         6,153
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                       63,532
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                             28,379
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                  98,064
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                            88,009
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                              56,950
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                    3,395
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                  74,781
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  321,199
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      230,909
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                             5,479
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     206,380
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     211,859
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         19,050
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                             (2,272)
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  16,778
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         8,304
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,474
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        145
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                    8,329
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                         4,964
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                        5,271
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          11,302
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.36
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.34


</TABLE>
EX-35.1
(logo) SUNTRUST



Wells Fargo Bank
9062 Old Annapolis Road
Columbia, MD 21045
Attention: STARM 2007-2



Re: Annual Compliance Statement for STARM 2007-2

In connection with the loans serviced by SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. (the
"Company") pursuant to the Company's Servicing Agreement(s)/Purchase and Sale
Agreement(s) with UBS Real Estate Securities and any applicable Reconstitution
Agreement(s) (together, the "Transaction Agreements"), I, the undersigned
officer, hereby certify the following as of December 31, 2007:

(i)  The Company conducted a review of its activities during the immediately
     preceding calendar year (or applicable portion thereof) and of its
     performance under the Transaction Agreements during such period has been
     made under my supervision; and

(ii) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Company has
     fulfilled all of its obligations under the Transaction Agreements in all
     material respects throughout such calendar year (or applicable portion
     thereof), except as follows:

*    SunTrust Mortgage did not maintain the required fidelity bond coverage
     amount in accordance with Section 229.1122(d)(i)(iv) at all times during
     2007. The Company maintained fidelity bond coverage in the amount of
     $150MM throughout calendar year 2007, which was determined to be
     insufficient according to applicable FNMA transaction agreement terms.
     This deficiency was an issue for limited portions of the year and resulted
     from an increase in the volume of the servicing portfolio. SunTrust
     Mortgage has requested a waiver from FNMA stating this coverage amount is
     adequate without regard for the size of the residential servicing
     portfolio, subject to an annual FNMA review. FNMA has verbally agreed to
     this request, and SunTrust Mortgage is working to formalize this
     agreement.

*    SunTrust Mortgage were out of compliance in accordance with Section
     229.1122(d)(2)(vii) certain bank reconciliations contained items that
     required enhanced explanations and that were not fully resolved within 90
     calendar days of original identification. The Company has enhanced its
     procedures and controls around the relevant reconciliation process to
     prevent any future compliance concerns.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I do hereby certify the foregoing as of the date hereof.



/s/ John R. Purcell, Jr.
John R. Purcell, Jr.
Senior Vice President - Manager, Servicing Division

Date: March 12, 2008