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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-30-1998
<CASH>                                         132,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  715,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                      ,000
<INVENTORY>                                     17,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               288,000
<PP&E>                                       1,252,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 100,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,404,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,258,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    500,000
<COMMON>                                     2,126,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   (979,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,404,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,374,000
<CGS>                                          222,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,339,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (38,000)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (965,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (969,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,081,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                2,125,827
<EPS-DILUTED>                                2,125,827
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Deborah Lee SYPNIEWISKI, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-11262

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 24, 2006.

Susan B. Cowger, Tamara Lynn Reno, US Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Jason Douglas Hawkins, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Deborah Lee Sypniewiski was convicted by a jury of counterfeiting obligations of the United States and possessing counterfeit obligations. Sypniewiski argues that the district court erred in enhancing her sentence based on her manufacture of counterfeit federal reserve notes pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2B5.1(b)(2)(A) and (b)(3) (2004). Sypniewiski argues that the enhancement was inapplicable under application note 4, which states that the enhancement does not apply where the items manufactured “are so obviously counterfeit that they are unlikely to be accepted even if subjected to only minimal scrutiny.” § 2B5.1, comment, (n.4).

Based on the personal inspection of the notes by the district court judge, the evidence regarding the number of times the bills were successfully and unsuccessfully passed, and the testimony of various witnesses including a Secret Service agent, the district court found that the counterfeit notes were not so obviously counterfeit that they were unlikely to be accepted even if subjected to only minimal scrutiny. The district court’s finding was plausible in light of the record as a whole and thus was not clearly erroneous. *United States v. Wyjack,*141 F.3d 181, 183-84 (5th Cir. *5841998); *United States v. Bollman,*141 F.3d 184, 187 (5th Cir.1998).

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 02-4212

DARCELLOUS SAFRANSKE CARRAWAY,

Defendant-Appellant. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 02-4230

STACEY JOSEPH MILLINER,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham.

Frank W. Bullock, Jr., District Judge.

(CR-01-89)

Submitted: June 25, 2002

Decided: July 25, 2002

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Thomas N. Cochran, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro,

North Carolina; William L. Osteen, ADAM & OSTEEN, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellants. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States

Attorney, Robert M. Hamilton, Assistant United States Attorney,

Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Darcellous Safranske Carraway and Stacey Joseph Milliner each

pled guilty to bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2113(a)

(West 2000), and were sentenced respectively to prison terms of sixty

months and sixty-six months. They contend on appeal that the district

court erred by making their sentences consecutive to the undischarged

state sentences they were serving without considering factors set out

in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000), and the commentary to U.S.

Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5G1.3(c), p.s. (2001). We affirm the

sentences. 

Carraway and Milliner maintain that the district court erred in not

making explicit findings concerning the factors set out in the commentary to § 5G1.3(c). We disagree. We are satisfied from our review

of the record that the district court was aware of its sentencing

options, of the applicable statutes and guidelines, and was familiar

with the facts of this case. The sentencing court is not required to

make specific findings as to each of the § 3553(a) factors. United

States v. Johnson, 138 F.3d 115, 119 (4th Cir. 1998); United States

v. Velasquez, 136 F.3d 921, 924 (2d Cir. 1998). 

We therefore affirm the sentences. 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

2 UNITED STATES v. CARRAWAY
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-0102

_____________________________

GERALD CARTER,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Bradford County.

Mark W. Moseley, Judge.

April 3, 2018

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, ROBERTS, and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

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

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Gerald Carter, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration 

          - [TA-W-65,182] 

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on February 9, 2009, in response to a petition filed by a company official and by United Auto Workers Local 730 on behalf of workers at General Motors Grand Rapids Stamping, Metal Fabricating Division, Wyoming, Michigan. 

The petitioners have requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated. 

Signed at Washington, DC this 29th day of April 2009. 

Elliott S. Kushner, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-11850 Filed 5-20-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ollman Lopez, Appellant.

Submitted January 11, 2010;

decided January 14, 2010

Reported below, 65 AD3d 1166.

Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Steven Banks, Esq., the Legal Aid Society, 199 Water Street, New York, NY 10038 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.
<PAGE>

Exhibit 11. Computation of Earnings Per Share



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                            THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1998       THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1997
                                         Weighted       Per                     Weighted     Per
                                          Average      Share                     Average    Share
                            Income        Shares       Amount       Income       Shares     Amount
                           -------        -------      ------      --------     ---------   ------
<S>                        <C>            <C>          <C>         <C>           <C>        <C>
  BASIC EARNINGS PER SHARE
   Income available to
   common stockholders      $1,440         2,881       $0.50       $1,267        2,888      $0.44
  Effect of Dilutive
  Securities
   Stock options                               4                                     4
   Phantom stock units                         8                                     7
                                           ------                                ------ 
  Diluted Earnings Per
  Share
   Income available to
   common stockholders and
   assumed conversions      $1,440         2,893       $0.50        $1,267       2,899      $0.44
                            ======         =====       =====        =======      ======     ======
</TABLE>
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-18-00502-CR

Ronardo FAIRLY,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CR3148

Honorable Joey Contreras, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ALVAREZ, JUSTICE RIOS, AND JUSTICE WATKINS

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is 

AFFIRMED, and appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. 

SIGNED September 11, 2019.

_____________________________

Beth Watkins, Justice
#### State v. Nickerson

Case below: 173 N.C. App. 642

No. 090P07

Def’s PWC to Review the Decision of the COA (COA04-1640)

Dismissed 06/27/07
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-6697
GARY JAY BEATTIE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus CHARLES E. THOMPSON, Warden, at S.C.C., Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Chief District Judge. (CA-95-41-AM) Submitted: January 23, 1996 Decided: May 29, 1996 Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, WILKINS, Circuit Judge, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gary Jay Beattie, Appellant Pro Se. Linwood Theodore Wells, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversibleerror. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Beattie v. Thompson , No. CA-95-41-AM (E.D. Va. Apr. 19, 1995). Because the case presents no exceptional circumstances, we deny Appellant's motions for appointment of counsel. We dispense withoral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
-  Home 
        -  Research & Funding 
        -  Technology Advancement & Transfer 
        -  Clinical Trial Collaboration 

Technology Advancement & Transfer
-  Research Materials & Licensing 
-  Clinical Trial Collaboration 
-  Research Collaboration 

# Clinical Trial Collaboration

NIDDK works in a number of clinical areas including diabetes, digestive diseases (including liver diseases), kidney and urologic diseases, obesity and weight control, endocrine and metabolic diseases, and hematological diseases.

For some of these trials, collaboration opportunities arise for organizations interested in contributing relevant diagnostics, educational materials, equipment, nutritional supplements, therapeutics, vaccines, and other biomedical technologies for evaluation.

There are two ways clinical researchers can collaborate with NIDDK: 
          - working in conjunction with clinical investigators here at NIDDK (intramural). For more information visit  NIH’s Clinical Center .  Ongoing clinical trials at the NIDDK are available at  ClinicalTrials.gov . 
          - through NIDDK-funded clinical consortia at institutions around the country (extramural). For more information on NIDDK multi-center clinical studies, visit the  Human Subjects Research  page.

For more information of the clinical research areas covered by NIDDK that are available for clinical trial collaborations please see NIDDK's Labs & Branches and extramural Research Programs & Contacts and Ancillary Studies to Major Outgoing Clinical Studies pages.

If you are interested in collaborating with NIDDK investigators or academic grantee organizations in a clinical trial, contact the Technology Advancement Office.
#### State v. McLean

Case below: 183 N.C. App.-(5 June 2007)

No. 326P07

Def’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. 7A-31 (COA06-952)

Denied 11/08/07
<PAGE>

                    [LETTERHEAD OF McGLADREY & PULLEN, LLP]


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-1 No. 33-51950) pertaining to the 1992 Stock Option and Incentive Plan of
Kankakee Bancorp, Inc., of our report dated January 27, 2000, with respect to
the consolidated financial statements of Kankakee Bancorp, Inc. incorporated by
reference in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1999.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-1 No. 33-51950) pertaining to the Kankakee Federal Amended and Restated
401 (K) Savings Plan of our report dated January 27, 2000, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of Kankakee Bancorp, Inc. incorporated by
reference in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1999.


/s/ McGladrey & Pullen, LLP

Champaign, Illinois
March 24, 2000
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-50717

Conference Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ROMAN GONZALEZ LOPEZ, also known as R.G. Lopez,

 Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. A-92-CR-215

- - - - - - - - - -

April 19, 1996

Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

R.G. Lopez appeals his sentence following remand for

conspiracy to distribute heroin and distribution of heroin. 

Lopez contends that the district court erred by attributing 283.5

grams of heroin to him; increasing his offense level upward for

his role as a manager supervisor; increasing his offense level

upward for obstruction of justice; increasing his offense level

upward for abuse of a position of trust; and attributing to him
No. 95-50717

-2-

an amount of heroin he negotiated to sell but was incapable of producing.

We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties

and we find no reversible error. Regarding the

manager/supervisor adjustment, we affirm for essentially the

reasons relied upon by the district court.

Regarding the attribution of 283.5 grams of heroin to Lopez,

the district court's finding that Lopez received $12,000 from a

coconspirator in October 1992 is clearly erroneous in light of

our previous opinion in Lopez's case. However, evidence supports

finding that Lopez did receive the money in November 1992 and

reasonably could have foreseen that the money was drugtrafficking proceeds. United States v. Maseratti, 1 F.3d 330,

340 (5th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 1096, and cert.

denied, 114 S. Ct. 1552, and cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 282 (1994). 

The district court's attribution of 283.5 grams of heroin was not

clearly erroneous.

Regarding Lopez's remaining contentions, the district court

rejected Lopez's objections to the presentence report in part

because Lopez filed those objections untimely, on the day before

sentencing. Lopez has failed to brief whether the district court

erred by rejecting his objections as untimely. Consequently, he

has failed to brief the proper issue for appeal. Brinkmann v.

Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.

1987). We therefore do not consider Lopez's remaining

contentions on their merits.

AFFIRMED.
fsb2ex10ii_goldvale.htm


    GOLDVALE
      RESOURCES, INC.

     

    3070
      Guildford Way #2006


    Coquitlam,
      BC V3B
      7R8

     

    TRUST
      AGREEMENT

     

    April
      26,
      2006

    
      


       

      In
        accordance with the instructions of the Board of Directors of the Corporation
        I, Steve Merry, President will hold the Goldvale Claim as described in Appendix
        A attached to this TRUST AGREEMENT IN Trust for the CORPORATION asPresident
        of the CORPORATION. If I resign from position of President
        than I will immediately transfer the Goldvale Claim
        to the new President of the CORPORATION.

       

      /s/Steve
        Merry

    

    Steve
      Merry, President
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2499 

To provide for the liquidation or reliquidation of an entry of certain 

manufacturing equipment entered on February 9, 2002. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

Mr. GRAHAM introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To provide for the liquidation or reliquidation of an entry 

of certain manufacturing equipment entered on February 

9, 2002. 

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

3 SECTION 1. LIQUIDATION OR RELIQUIDATION OF AN 

4 ENTRY OF CERTAIN MANUFACTURING EQUIP5 MENT ENTERED ON FEBRUARY 9, 2002. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding sections 514 and 

7 520 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1514 and 1520) 

8 or any other provision of law, not later than 90 days after 

9 the receipt of the request described in subsection (b), any 

10 article— 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2499 IS

1 (1) that was entered on February 9, 2002, 

2 under Entry Number 66901774563, and 

3 (2) with respect to which heading 9902.84.89 

4 (as in effect on December 31, 2001) of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States would 

6 have applied if such article had been entered, or 

7 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on De8 cember 31, 2001, 

9 shall be liquidated or reliquidated as if heading 

10 9902.84.89 (as in effect on December 31, 2001) applied 

11 to such entry, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

12 shall refund any excess duty paid with respect to such 

13 entry. 

14 (b) REQUEST.—Liquidation or reliquidation may be 

15 made under subsection (a) with respect to the entry de16 scribed in such subsection only if a request therefor is filed 

17 with U.S. Customs and Border Protection not later than 

18 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

19 (c) REFUND OF AMOUNTS OWED.—Any amounts 

20 owed by the United States pursuant to the liquidation or 

21 reliquidation of the entry described in subsection (a) (in22 cluding interest from the date of entry) shall be refunded 

23 not later than 90 days after the date of such liquidation 

24 or reliquidation. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
#### Martin v. Martin (Now Davidson)

Case below: 180 N.C. App. 237

No. 634P06

Pit’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA05-1662)

Denied 01/25/07
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 201 (Tuesday, October 20, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 53767]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-25147]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-65,216]


H&H Trailer Company, Including On-Site Workers From Brandon Hall; 
Clarinda, IA; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for 
Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment 
Assistance

    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
2273), and Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as 
amended, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility 
to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade 
Adjustment Assistance on February 25, 2009, applicable to workers of 
H&H Trailer Company, Clarinda, Iowa. The notice was published in the 
Federal Register on March 19, 2009 (74 FR 11757).
    At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the 
certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers were engaged 
in the production of trailers.
    New information shows that workers from Brandon Hall were employed 
on-site to provide hauling services for the Clarinda, Iowa location of 
H&H Trailer Company. The Department has determined that these workers 
were sufficiently under the control and in support of H&H Trailer 
Company, Clarinda, Iowa to be included in the certification 
determination established for the subject firm.
    Based on these findings, the Department is amending this 
certification to include workers from Brandon Hall working on-site at 
the Clarinda, Iowa location of H&H Trailer Company.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-65,216 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    All workers of H&H Trailer Company, including on-site workers 
from Brandon Hall, Clarinda, Iowa, who became totally or partially 
separated from employment on or after February 10, 2008 through 
February 25, 2011, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance 
under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, and are also eligible to 
apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 
of the Trade Act of 1974.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 8th day of October 2009.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-25147 Filed 10-19-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
    <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width" />
    <meta name="robots" content="noindex">
    <title>United States Renal Data System - USRDS - NIDDK</title>
    
<meta name="VIcurrentDateTime" content="638490782680777020" />
<meta name="VirtualFolder" content="/" />
<script type="text/javascript" src="/layouts/system/VisitorIdentification.js"></script>

</head>
<body>
    <div></div>
</body>
</html>