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

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-02-1995
<CASH>                                          15,083
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,048
<ALLOWANCES>                                        73
<INVENTORY>                                     10,472
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                36,252
<PP&E>                                          15,016
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,226
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  51,100
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,838
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              612
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      39,068
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    51,100
<SALES>                                         15,546
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                15,743
<CGS>                                            9,275
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   14,131
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     4
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  30
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,578
<INCOME-TAX>                                       610
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                968
<DISCONTINUED>                                   1,600
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,568
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.58
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.58
        

</TABLE>
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
    <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width" />
    <meta name="robots" content="noindex">
    <title>NIDDK Recent Advances & Emerging Opportunities - NIDDK</title>
    
<meta name="VIcurrentDateTime" content="638490781821374105" />
<meta name="VirtualFolder" content="/" />
<script type="text/javascript" src="/layouts/system/VisitorIdentification.js"></script>

</head>
<body>
    <div></div>
</body>
</html>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 19
- 0 581 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. SCOTT W. ELLISON,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including January 18, 2021 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: James Jeremiah Shea Justice, Montana Supreme Court December 10 2020

12/10/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0581
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Nos. 04-19-00813-CR & 04-19-00814-CR

Raymond Andrew DEBA,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court Nos. 2005CR0716 & 2005CR0956

Honorable Philip A. Kazen, Jr., Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Delivered and Filed: January 15, 2020

DISMISSED

In each of these consolidated appeals, the trial court’s certification states that the criminal 

case, “is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” Each certification further 

states, “[T]he defendant has waived the right of appeal.”

Rule 25.2(a)(2) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provides:

In a plea bargain case—that is, a case in which a defendant’s plea was guilty or 

nolo contendere and the punishment did not exceed the punishment recommended 

by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant—a defendant may appeal only:

(A) those matters that were raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial,
04-19-00813-CR & 04-19-00814-CR

- 2 -

(B) after getting the trial court’s permission to appeal, or

(C) where the specific appeal is expressly authorized by statute.

TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). The clerk’s record in each appeal contains a written plea bargain, and 

the records show that the punishment assessed in each case by the trial court does not exceed the 

punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant. See id. The clerk’s 

record in each case does not include a written motion filed and ruled upon before trial, nor does it 

indicate the trial court gave its permission to appeal. See id. Appellant has not identified with this 

court any statute that expressly authorizes the specific appeal. See id. The trial court’s

certifications, therefore, appear to accurately reflect that these are plea-bargain cases and appellant 

does not have a right to appeal.

We must dismiss an appeal “if a certification that shows the defendant has the right of 

appeal has not been made part of the record.” TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d). We issued an order stating 

these appeals would be dismissed unless amended trial court certifications were made part of the 

appellate records by December 27, 2019. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d); Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 

610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Daniels v. State,110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, no 

pet.). No such amended trial court certifications have been filed.

Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed pursuant to Rule 25.2(d).

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
#### State v. Key

Case below: 182 N.C. App.-(17 April 2007)

No. 209P07

1. Defendant’s Motion for Temporary Stay (COA06-499)

2. Defendant’s (Mark Key) Petition for Writ of Supersedeas

3. Respondent’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31

1. Allowed 04/30/07 Stay Dissolved 06/27/07

2. Denied 06/27/07

3. Denied 06/27/07
S. Con. Res. 31 Agreed to May 10, 2005

One Hundred Ninth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the fourth day of January, two thousand and five

Concurrent Resolution

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That in the enrollment of H.R. 1268, an Act making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes, the Clerk of the House

of Representatives is hereby authorized and directed to correct

section 502 of title V of division B so that clause (ii) of section

106(d)(2)(B) of the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-first

Century Act of 2000 (Public Law 106–313; 8 U.S.C. 1153 note),

as amended by such section 502, reads as follows:

‘‘(ii) MAXIMUM.—The total number of visas made available under paragraph (1) from unused visas from the fiscal

years 2001 through 2004 may not exceed 50,000.’’.

Attest:

Secretary of the Senate.

Attest:

Clerk of the House of Representatives.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Wayne M. Johnson, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 2.)

[963 NYS2d 912]

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (John J. Connell, J.), rendered June 27, 2008. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the first degree and robbery in the third degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Same memorandum as in *People v Johnson*(105 AD3d 1452 [2013]).

Present—Scudder, EJ., Centra, Carni, Sconiers and Martoche, JJ.
EXHIBIT 10.7


 


Tri-S Security Corporation


Paragon Systems, Inc.


 


October
6, 2004


 


Charles Keathley


9017 Valley View Drive


Huntsville, Alabama  35801


 


Robert Luther


2115 Buckingham Drive


Huntsville, Alabama 35803


 


Re:                               Agreement Regarding Notes and Preferred Shares
(“Agreement Regarding Notes and Preferred Shares”) dated as of September 29,
2004 among Tri-S Security Corporation (“Tri-S”), Paragon Systems, Inc.
(“Paragon”), Harold Bright, Charles Keathley, Robert Luther and John Wilson.


 


Gentlemen:


 


This letter (“Letter
Agreement”), when countersigned by each of you, will set forth the agreement
among Tri-S, Paragon and each of you regarding the subject matter set forth
herein.


 


Tri-S, Paragon and each of
you hereby agree and acknowledge that the Agreement Regarding Notes and
Preferred Shares and the agreements contemplated thereby are effective and
binding among, and constitute valid obligations of, Tri-S, Paragon and each of
you, in accordance with the terms thereof, notwithstanding the fact that
Messrs. Bright and Wilson did not execute the Agreement Regarding Notes and
Preferred Shares.


 


If the foregoing accurately
reflects our agreement, we would appreciate each of you executing this Letter
Agreement in the space below and returning a copy by facsimile to Lori Gelchion
with Rogers & Hardin LLP, counsel to Tri-S, at (404) 525-2224.


 


	
   

  	
  Very truly yours,

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  TRI-S
  SECURITY CORPORATION

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Ronald G. Farrell

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Printed Name:  Ronald G. Farrell

  
	
   

  	
  Title:  President and Chief Executive Officer

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  PARAGON
  SYSTEMS, INC.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Ronald G. Farrell

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Printed Name: Ronald G.
  Farrell

  
	
   

  	
  Title: Chief Executive
  Officer

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Agreed and Accepted:

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  /s/ Robert
  Luther

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  ROBERT
  LUTHER

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  /s/ Charles
  Keathley

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  CHARLES
  KEATHLEY
Jesus Maria Alvarez & 

Associates; Ana Lisa Garza, s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 8, 2014

No. 04-14-00109-CV

Sergio ALANIZ, SR., et al.,

Appellants

v.

JESUS MARIA ALVAREZ & ASSOCIATES; Ana Lisa Garza, Intervenor,

Appellees

From the 381st Judicial District Court, Starr County, Texas

Trial Court No. DC-00-328

Honorable J. Manuel Banales, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellants seek to appeal the January 13, 2014 order denying their motion to recuse the 

trial judge, the Honorable Frederico J. Hinojosa, retired Justice of the Thirteenth Court of 

Appeals. It appears from the clerk’s record that the order is interlocutory because the underlying 

proceeding out of which the order arises remains pending and no severance order appears in the 

record. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 200 (Tex. 2001) (appellate courts only 

have jurisdiction to review final judgments that dispose of all parties and causes of action and 

certain interlocutory orders identified by statute). Rule 18a(j) of the Texas Rules of Civil 

Procedure expressly states that an order denying a motion to recuse may only be reviewed on 

appeal from the final judgment. TEX. R. CIV. P. 18a(j)(1)(A).

It is therefore ORDERED that appellants show cause in writing within fifteen days of 

the date of this order why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The 

briefing schedule is suspended pending our determination of whether we have jurisdiction over 

this appeal.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 8th day of April, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                       SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                                  28,772
<SECURITIES>                                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                                           22,582
<ALLOWANCES>                                                 0
<INVENTORY>                                                  0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                        60,510
<PP&E>                                                  39,140
<DEPRECIATION>                                          27,768
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                          85,717
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    8,920
<BONDS>                                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                        0
<PREFERRED>                                                  0
<COMMON>                                                12,817
<OTHER-SE>                                              58,411
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                            85,717
<SALES>                                                 96,586
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                        96,586
<CGS>                                                   54,740
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                           54,740
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        88,937
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                         260
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        (47,091)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             7,064
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    (40,027)
<DISCONTINUED>                                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                              0
<CHANGES>                                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                                           (40,027)
<EPS-BASIC>                                            (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            (0.01)



</TABLE>
Letter Agreement



 Exhibit 10.1 
 

 
 November 28, 2007 
 Bryant R.
Riley 
 Riley Investment Management LLC 
 11000 Santa Monica
Boulevard 
 Suite 810 
 Los Angeles, CA 90025 
  

	 	Re:	Integrated Silicon Solution, Inc. (“ISSI” or the “Company”) 

 Dear Bryant: 
 This letter is intended to reflect our recent discussions. To confirm your agreement to the
matters herein, please sign and return this letter to me. 
 1) As approved by the ISSI Board of Directors on November 27, 2007, the
Company plans to purchase up to $70.0 million of its common stock in a “fixed price” tender offer at $7.00 per share (the “Tender Offer”) pursuant to tender offer materials to be filed by the Company with the Securities and
Exchange Commission no later than December 7, 2007 (the “Tender Offer Materials”). 
 2) Effective upon the closing of the
Tender Offer where the Company has purchased and paid for all shares tendered at $7.00 up to $70.0 million (the “Tender Offer Closing”), you and Melvin Keating hereby agree to resign from the Board of Directors of ISSI. Such resignations
will be disclosed in the Tender Offer Materials. 
 4) On the date hereof, you will enter into a Standstill Agreement with ISSI in the form
attached hereto as Exhibit A which will become effective immediately upon the closing of the Tender Offer. 
 5) Upon the Tender Offer
Closing, the terms of the letter agreement between you and ISSI dated August 28, 2006, as amended as of November 30, 2006, shall immediately terminate and be of no further force or effect on and after such date. 
 You and ISSI agree that either party may make the contents of this letter public in order to comply with applicable federal and state securities laws.

  

	
	Regards,
	
	Integrated Silicon Solution, Inc.
	
	/s/ Jimmy S.M. Lee
	Jimmy S.M. Lee, Chairman and CEO










			
	Accepted and agreed to:
	
	Riley Investment Management LLC
		
	By:	 	/s/ Bryant R. Riley
		 	Bryant R. Riley, Managing Member

  

			
	Riley Investment Partners Master Fund, L.P.
		
	By:	 	 Riley Investment Management, LLC,
 its General Partner


		
	By:	 	/s/ Bryant R. Riley
		 	Bryant R. Riley, Managing Member

  

	
	/s/ Bryant R. Riley
	Bryant R. Riley

  

			
	B. Riley & Co. Retirement Trust
		
	By:	 	/s/ Bryant R. Riley
		 	Bryant R. Riley, Trustee

  

			
	B. Riley & Co., LLC
		
	By:	 	/s/ Bryant R. Riley
		 	Bryant R. Riley, Chairman

 Dated: November 28, 2007
#### CASE v. OPERATIVE PLASTERERS’ & CEMENT FINISHERS’ INTERNATIONAL ASS’N OF UNITED STATES & CANADA.

No. 83914.

District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia.

Nov. 2, 1936.

Arthur G. Lambert, George L. Hart, Jr., and Arthur R. Murphy, all of Washington, D. C., for plaintiff.

Benjamin L. Tepper and Charles S. Baker, both of Washington, D. C., for defendant and garnishee.

BAILEY, Associate Justice.

Upon the hearing of the oral examination of the garnishee in this case, I understood that Mr. Baker and Mr. Tepper were acting as counsel for the garnishee. A brief has been filed by them describing themselves as “Amici curiae,” but my recollection is that they took part in the hearing, and that there was no application by them for leave to act as “Amici curiae.”

However, I am satisfied that no judgment can be had based solely upon the oral hearing.
NO. 12-20-00139-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

ANTHONY HENEGAR AND LORI 

HENEGAR, INDIVIDUALLY AND 

A/N/F MASON HENEGAR, DRU 

HENEGAR AND MASON HENEGAR, 

APPELLANTS

V.

REGAL MARINE INDUSTRIES, INC., 

ET AL, APPELLEES

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE 173RD 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

HENDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Appellants, Anthony Henegar and Lori Henegar, individually and a/n/f Mason Henegar 

and Dru Henegar, and Mason Henegar, filed an unopposed partial motion to dismiss this appeal

with respect to Appellees CIPA USA, Inc. and One Water Marine Holdings, LLC. No decision 

has been delivered in this appeal. Accordingly, Appellants’ motion to dismiss is granted, and the 

appeal is dismissed as to CIPA and One Water. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a). This dismissal does 

not affect Appellants’ appeal with respect to Appellees Regal Marine Industries, Inc., Rule 

Industries, LLC, Earmark, Inc., and Singleton Assets & Operations, LLC d/b/a Phil Dill Boats.

Opinion delivered June 9, 2021.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

JUNE 9, 2021

NO. 12-20-00139-CV

ANTHONY HENEGAR AND LORI HENEGAR, INDIVIDUALLY AND

A/N/F MASON HENEGAR, DRU HENEGAR AND MASON HENEGAR,

Appellants

V.

REGAL MARINE INDUSTRIES, INC., ET AL,

Appellees

Appeal from the 173rd District Court

of Henderson County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. CV17-0294-392)

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the unopposed partial motion of the 

Appellants to dismiss the appeal herein with respect to Appellees CIPA USA, Inc. and One 

Water Marine Holdings, LLC, and the same being considered, it is hereby ORDERED, 

ADJUDGED and DECREED by this Court that the motion to dismiss be granted and the appeal 

be dismissed as to CIPA and One Water, and that the decision be certified to the court below 

for observance. This dismissal does not affect Appellants’ appeal as to Appellees Regal Marine 

Industries, Inc., Rule Industries, LLC, Earmark, Inc., and Singleton Assets & Operations, LLC 

d/b/a Phil Dill Boats.

By per curiam opinion.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
#### Antonio Pineda, Appellant, v Wesley Werner Moore et al., Respondents. Juton Robinson, Plaintiff, v Moore Truckin et al., Defendants.

[975 NYS2d 662]

— Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard H. Sherman, J.), entered May 4, 2012, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants Wesley Werner Moore and Truckin Moore’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied.

Defendants failed to establish their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. One of defendants’ examining physicians found limited ranges of motion in plaintiffs lumbar spine raising a triable issue of fact on the issue of whether plaintiff suffered a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) *(see Chakrani v Beck Cab Corp.,*82 AD3d 436 [1st Dept 2011]). Defendants also failed to meet their burden of showing that plaintiffs injuries are not causally related to the accident. They submitted insufficient evidence in support of their claim that the injuries are degenerative or were caused by a subsequent accident *(see Bray v Rosas,*29 AD3d 422, 423-424 [1st Dept 2006]; *Jean-Baptiste v Tobias,*88 AD3d 962 [2d Dept 2011]). Furthermore, even assuming that defendants met their initial burden, plaintiff’s submissions are sufficient to defeat the motion *(see Frias v James,*69 AD3d 466 [1st Dept 2010]; *Bray v Rosas,*29 AD3d at 424).

*578Finally, we note that the motion court properly dismissed plaintiffs 90/180-day claims, which, in any event, plaintiff has abandoned on appeal *(see McHale v Anthony,*41 AD3d 265, 266-267 [1st Dept 2007]). Concur — Friedman, J.E, Renwick, Freedman and Feinman, JJ.
#### Mohammad Haji Ali AKBARI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-73732.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

May 6, 2009.

Mohammad Haji Ali Akbari, Azusa, CA, pro se.

CAC-Distriet Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Virginia Lum, DOJ — U.S. Department Of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, BYBEE, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

The memorandum disposition filed on January 22, 2009, is withdrawn.

The panel has determined that the appointment of pro bono counsel in this petition would benefit the court’s review. The court by this order expresses no opinion as to the merits of this petition. The Clerk shall enter an order appointing pro bono counsel to represent petitioner for purposes of this petition only.

Pro bono counsel shall consult with petitioner to determine whether: (1) replacement briefing; or (2) supplemental briefing and petitioner’s previously filed brief will be submitted to the judges deciding this petition. The court encourages the submission of replacement briefing rather than supplemental briefing. "If petitioner elects to file replacement briefing, respondent shall also file a replacement brief or shall notify the court in writing that respondent stands on the previously filed answering brief. Both parties shall state on the cover pages of the briefs whether they are replacement briefs or supplemental briefs. Pro bono counsel shall appear at oral argument.

*564The Clerk shall establish a supplemental/replacement briefing schedule. The petition is stayed pending further order of this court.

If petitioner objects to the court’s appointment of counsel in this petition, petitioner shall file a written objection within 14 days after the filing date of this order.