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


<ARTICLE>                                                                      5
<LEGEND>
                            THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
                           EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE SHEET AS OF MARCH 31, 1997
                           AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
                                                                  BALANCE SHEET.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                                                 0000820807
<NAME>                                   FFCA INVESTOR SERVICES CORPORATION 88-C
<MULTIPLIER>                                                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                                         U. S. DOLLARS
                                               
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                  1
<CASH>                                         100
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    0
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 0
<PP&E>                                           0
<DEPRECIATION>                                   0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 200
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            0
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                       100
<OTHER-SE>                                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   200
<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-PRIMARY>                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0
                                               

</TABLE>
[946 NE2d 740, 921 NYS2d 641]

#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Barak Cornell, Respondent.

Decided March 24, 2011

*802APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*David W. Foley, District Attorney,*Mayville *(Lynn S. Schaffer*of counsel), for appellant.

*Lipsitz Green Scime Cambria LLP,*Buffalo *(Timothy P. Murphy*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

A trial court has the constitutional duty to advise a defendant of the direct consequences of a guilty plea, including any period of postrelease supervision (PRS) that will be imposed as part of the sentence *(see People v Catu, 4*NY3d 242, 244-245 [2005]). “Although the court is not required to engage in any particular litany when allocuting the defendant, ‘due process requires that the record must be clear that the plea represents a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action open to the defendant’ ” *(id.*at 245, quoting *People v Ford,*86 NY2d 397, 403 [1995]). “[T]he failure of a court to advise of postrelease supervision requires reversal of the conviction” *(id.*at 245). Further, “where a trial judge does not fulfill the obligation to advise a defendant of postrelease supervision during the plea allocution, the defendant may challenge the plea as not knowing, voluntary and intelligent on direct appeal, notwithstanding the absence of a postallocution motion” *(People v Louree,*8 NY3d 541, 545-546 [2007]).

Here, the record does not make clear, as required by *Catu,*that at the time defendant took his plea, he was aware that the terms of the court’s promised sentence included a period of PRS. Accordingly, the Appellate Division correctly determined that defendant’s conviction must be reversed and that his guilty plea be vacated even in the absence of a postallocution motion.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.

*803On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed in a memorandum.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-6907

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ANTHONY VANZETTI THOMAS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CR-87-175-A)

Submitted: October 24, 1995 Decided: May 24, 1996

Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, and HAMILTON and MOTZ, Circuit

Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Vanzetti Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. Michael R. Smythers,

Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988) motion. We have reviewed the record and the

district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v.

Thomas, No. CR-87-175-A (E.D. Va. May 3, 1995). 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.

AFFIRMED
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-3694

_____________________________

TERRELL DANIELS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

James C. Hankinson, Judge.

April 24, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, BILBREY, and WINSOR, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

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

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Terrell Daniels, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Quentin Humphrey, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
<PAGE>
                                                                     Exhibit 3.1


                              HANOVER DIRECT, INC.


                   AMENDMENT TO BYLAWS ADOPTED BY RESOLUTION

                    OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS ON MAY 13, 2004


      RESOLVED that the second sentence of Article II, Section 4(c) of the
By-laws of the Company be and it hereby is amended to read as follows: "Special
meetings may be called by or at the direction of the Chairman of the Board, if
any, the Vice Chairman of the Board, if any, the Chairman of any standing
committee of the Board of Directors, the President, or a majority of the
directors in office.
Exhibit 32.2

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 periodic report of Dynacq Healthcare, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-K for the year ending August 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Philip S. Chan, Vice President  Finance and Chief Financial 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, to the best of my knowledge:

(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 result of operations of the Company.



|                         |  |  |  |  |  |                                                                             
|------------------------ |  |  |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: November 13, 2007 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Philip S. Chan                                                          
|                         |  |  |  |  |  | Philip S. Chan                                                              
|                         |  |  |  |  |  | Vice President  Finance and Chief Financial Officer Dynacq Healthcare, Inc.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 7**  **876**

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. MICHAEL ANTHONY HICKSON , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt
. Roger W. Titus , Senior District Judge. ( 8 :09

- cr - 00 213

- RWT

- 2; 8:13

- cv - 02790

- RWT; 8:14

- cv - 00167

- RWT )

Submitted : April 23, 2015 Decided: April 28, 2015

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Dismiss ed by un published per curiam opinion
. Michael Anthony Hickson , Appellant Pro Se
. Bryan E. Foreman, Christen Anne Sproule , Assistant U nited States Attorney s , Adam Kenneth Ake, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland , for Appellee
.

Un published opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Michael Anthony Hickson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ( 2012 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or ju dge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (B) (20 12 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (20 12 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S . 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a de batable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hickson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability , deny Hickson’ s motion for bail pending appeal, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are3 adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
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 Quarterly Report of Arête Industries, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Charles L. Gamber, 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 result of operations of the Company.














Dated December 22, 2010
By:
/s/ Charles L. GamberCharles L.Gamber, Chief Executive Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Arête Industries, Inc. and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request
[NSA Letterhead appears here]



Exhibit 23.2



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS



We hereby consent to the references in this Form 10-K of Plains Exploration & Production Company, as well as in the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements
included in such Form 10-K, to our reserve reports to the interest of Plains Exploration & Production Company and its subsidiaries (collectively the Company), relating to the estimated quantities of certain of the Companys
proved reserves of oil and gas and present values thereof for certain periods. We also consent to the incorporation by reference of such reports in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-102627, No. 333-107990, No. 333-115628 and No.
333-117425) and Form S-3 (No. 333-112027) of Plains Exploration & Production Company.



NETHERLAND, SEWELL & ASSOCIATES, INC.By:

/s/ G. Lance BinderG. Lance Binder Executive Vice President




Houston, Texas

March 15, 2005
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-2325

JOHN A. LENHART,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY,

Defendant - Appellee,

and

GE LIGHTING SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Graham C. Mullen, Chief

District Judge. (CA-99-174-3-MU)

Submitted: April 11, 2002 Decided: June 3, 2002

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John W. Gresham, FERGUSON, STEIN, CHAMBERS, WALLAS, ADKINS, GRESHAM

& SUMTER, P.A., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. G. Scott

Humphrey, MOORE & VAN ALLEN, P.L.L.C., Charlotte, North Carolina,

for Appellee.
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

John A. Lenhart appeals the district court’s order granting

summary judgment to General Electric Company on Lenhart’s claims of

discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29

U.S.C.A. §§ 621-634 (West 1999 & Supp. 2001), and a related state

law claim. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant Lenhart’s

motion for leave to file additional material, we affirm on the

reasoning of the district court. See Lenhart v. Gen. Elec. Co.,

No. CA-99-174-3-MU (W.D.N.C. filed Sept. 28, 2001 & entered Oct. 1,

2001). 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.

AFFIRMED
******Exhibit 31.1********Certification pursuant to Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d)****under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934**I, Robert J. Perret, certify that: 1.  I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Wachovia Mortgage Loan Trust, LLC Series 2007-A Trust (the "Exchange Act periodic reports"); 2.  Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 3.  Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports; 4.  I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicers and based on my knowledge and the compliance reviews conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements in all material respects; and 5.  All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K. In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: U.S. Bank National Association, National City Mortgage Co., Fifth Third Mortgage Company, SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Date:  March _28, 2008 By:      /s/ Robert J. Perret          Name:  Robert J. Perret Title:  Vice President ********
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Alfredo DE LA FUENTE-GARZA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-40580

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 30, 2009.

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

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

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Alfredo De La Fuente-Garza has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). De La Fuente-Garza has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, 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.
## Contact Information

Bethesda MD20894

xiantao.wang@nih.gov

## Summary

Xiantao Wang is using photoactivatable ribonucleoside-enhanced crosslinking and immunoprecipitation (PAR-CLIP) to identify RNA binding protein target sites on a genome-wide scale and prepare a small RNA cDNA library.

September 2021

Back to Top
#### Allen Kirk WARE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Tom L. CAREY, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 05-16760.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 6, 2006.*

Filed Nov. 14, 2006.

Allen Kirk Ware, Vacaville, CA, pro se.

Lisa A. Tillman, Esq., AGCA, Office of the California Attorney General, Department of Justice, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before: LEAVY, McKEOWN, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Allen Kirk Ware appeals *pro se*from the district court’s judgment dismissing for lack of jurisdiction his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition challenging the 1987 decision of the Board of Prison Terms (“Board”) rescinding his parole date and finding him unsuitable for parole. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

On appeal, Ware contends that the district court erred in dismissing his 2003 habeas petition as successive to his 1998 habeas petition because although “inartfully pled[,] the habeas petition pertained to issues raised at the October 30, 2001 Board hearing, and not merely error from 1987.”

We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s dismissal of a § 2254 petition as successive. *United States v. Gutierrez,*116 F.3d 412, 415 (9th Cir.1997). The fact that a petitioner has previously *658filed habeas petitions does not automatically render subsequent petitions “second or successive.” *See Hill v. Alaska,*297 F.3d 895, 898 (9th Cir.2002). A ground is “successive if the basic thrust or gravamen of the legal claim is the same, regardless of whether the basic claim is supported by new and different legal arguments.” *See United States v. Allen,*157 F.3d 661, 664 (9th Cir.1998) (internal quotations omitted).

We conclude that none of the claims in Ware’s 2003 petition is unique to his 2001 proceeding or reflects intervening changes in the law, but instead his claims stem from his ongoing dissatisfaction with Board’s actions in 1987. Because the claims were addressed on the merits in his 1998 habeas petition, we affirm the district court.

The Government’s motion for a stay of appellate proceedings is denied.

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.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 590 Placed on Calendar Senate (PCS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 144
109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 590

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 750 4th Street in Sparks, Nevada, as the ``Mayor Tony Armstrong 
                        Memorial Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 10, 2005

 Mr. Ensign (for himself and Mr. Reid) introduced the following bill; 
which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

                             June 29, 2005

     Committee discharged and ordered to be placed on the calendar

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 750 4th Street in Sparks, Nevada, as the ``Mayor Tony Armstrong 
                        Memorial Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. MAYOR TONY ARMSTRONG MEMORIAL POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 750 4th Street in Sparks, Nevada, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Mayor Tony Armstrong Memorial Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Mayor Tony 
Armstrong Memorial Post Office''.
                                                       Calendar No. 144

109th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                 S. 590

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 750 4th Street in Sparks, Nevada, as the ``Mayor Tony Armstrong 
                        Memorial Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             June 29, 2005

     Committee discharged and ordered to be placed on the calendar
```