alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
December 15, 2011

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

OTIS BYRD, JR., Appellant

NO. 14-11-00711-CV V.

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE 

POOLING AND SERVICING AGREEMENT DATED AS OF 4/1/07 SECURITIZED 

ASSET BACKED RECEIVABLES LLC TRUST 2007-BR2 MORTGAGE PASSTHROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-BR2, Appellee

____________________

Today the Court heard its own motion to dismiss the appeal from the judgment 

signed by the court below on August 2, 2011. Having considered the motion and found it 

meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED.

We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by OTIS 

BYRD, JR.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
National Intelligence University
						The Center of Academic Life for the Intelligence Community
																									About UsMenu Toggle
Office of the President
	Board of Visitors
	Vision and Mission
	Locations
	Accreditation
	NIU History
AcademicsMenu Toggle
Degrees
	Certificate in Intelligence Studies
	Schools
AdmissionsMenu Toggle
Apply Here
	Admission FAQs
StudentsMenu Toggle
Academic Calendar
	Academic Catalog
	NIU Library
	Graduation Information
	Student Senate
	Blackboard Login
	NIU Online Store
ResearchMenu Toggle
Caracristi Institute
	Caracristi Monographs
	Intelligence Jumpstart Podcast
	NI Press
	NIU Library
	Research Fellows Program
AlumniMenu Toggle
NIU Online Store
	Thesis Requests
	Transcript Requests
Contact Us
				Search for:
		Search
			Search 
National Intelligence University
						The Center of Academic Life for the Intelligence Community
																									Main Menu Student SenateNIU Student Senate
				
				The NIU Student Senate is the representative body for all students and is an official entity within NIU governance. It comprises Student Senators from the day, evening, and weekend programs, as well as the Bachelor’s program and NIU’s Academic Centers. The Student Senate provides the opportunity for students to address their concerns directly to NIU leadership and take steps toward improving student life at NIU. It is a Student Senator’s duty to represent each specific contingency (each program, format, and location) of the student body, to make sure all student needs are being met.Please visit the Student Senate section on Blackboard for more information: *Blackboard*> *Institution Page* > *Organizations* > *Student Affairs* > *Student Senate*.
				NIU Blackboard portal
 About UsMenu Toggle
Office of the President
	Board of Visitors
	Accreditation
	Vision and Mission
	Location
	History
AcademicsMenu Toggle
Degree
	Certificate Of Intelligence Studies
	Schools
AdmissionsMenu Toggle
Apply here
	Admissions FAQs
StudentsMenu Toggle
Academic Calendar
	Academic Catalog
	NIU Library
	Graduation Information
	Student Senate
	Blackboard Login
	NIU Online Store
ResearchMenu Toggle
Caracristi Institute
	Caracristi Monographs
	Intelligence JumpStart Podcast
	NI Press
	NIU Library
AlumniMenu Toggle
NIU Online Store
	Thesis Requests
	Transcript Request
Contact Us
 Quick Links:Apply Now2023/24 NIU Academic Catalog
Academics:Bachelor of Science in Intelligence DegreeMaster of Science of Strategic IntelligenceMaster of Science and Technology Intelligence DegreeCertificate in Intelligence Studies
School:College of Strategic IntelligenceSchool of Science and Technology Intelligence
					Office of Admissions:Roberdeau HallWashington, DC 20511
Phone: (301) 243-2094Fax: (301) 227-7067Email:  NIU_Admissions@niu.odni.gov
Office of the Registrar:Phone: (301) 243-2093Fax: (301) 227-7067Email: NIU_Enrollments@niu.odni.gov
Accessibility / Section 508
ODNI Privacy Policy Web Policies
NI-U.edu Web Policies
External Links Disclaimer
						National Intelligence University © 2024
#### MAPCO, Inc. v. N.C. Dep’t of Transp.

Case below: 175 N.C. App. 570

No. 085P06

Pit’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA05-266)

Denied 01/25/07
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 2421

_____________________________
K.V.

- O., Mother o f B.C.
, Appellant,

v.

D EPARTMENT OF C HILDREN AND F AMILIES , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Columbia County

. Leandra G. Johnson , Judge

. September 14, 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
R OWE , O STERHAUS , and K ELSEY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 David J. Joffe of Joffe Law, P.A., Ft. Lauderdale
, for Appellant.

Ward L. Metzger, Appellate Counsel, Department of Child ren and Families, Jacksonville, for Appellee.

Sara Elizabeth Goldfarb, Appellate Counsel, Guardian ad Litem Program, Tallahassee
, for Guardian ad Litem Program.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT
OF OPERATIONS FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           2,795
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   53,718
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,080
<INVENTORY>                                     49,023
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               108,851
<PP&E>                                         296,937
<DEPRECIATION>                                 123,957
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 313,455
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           76,339
<BONDS>                                        246,754
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                    (23,652)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   313,455
<SALES>                                        451,807
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               451,807
<CGS>                                          351,424
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  351,424
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              29,657
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 22,643
<INCOME-TAX>                                       900
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             21,743
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    21,743
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR HEARx LTD AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000821536
<NAME>                        HEARX LTD
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-26-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                DEC-28-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                  MAR-28-1997
<CASH>                                          9,897,002
<SECURITIES>                                   10,940,337
<RECEIVABLES>                                   4,303,501
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (819,322)
<INVENTORY>                                       364,829
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               24,875,865
<PP&E>                                         11,980,285
<DEPRECIATION>                                (3,160,833)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 34,883,631
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           5,256,939
<BONDS>                                           188,999
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                        11,750
<COMMON>                                        8,445,928
<OTHER-SE>                                     20,980,015
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   34,883,631
<SALES>                                         5,748,257
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                5,748,257
<CGS>                                           1,811,763
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   5,827,977
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (1,891,483)
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (1,891,483)
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    55,186
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (1,946,669)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (0.02)
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Allen Albergotti, Appellant.

Submitted June 28, 2010;

decided August 26, 2010

Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Robert S. Dean, Esq., Center for Appellate Litigation, 74 Trinity Place, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10006 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


Exhibit 27.1

Financial Data Schedule

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        12-MOS
<PERIOD-END>                    DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1997
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                8,102
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                         1,508
<ALLOWANCES>                              0
<INVENTORY>                           3,122
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     13,213
<PP&E>                               18,109
<DEPRECIATION>                        2,922
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       30,358
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                15,698
<BONDS>                               4,824
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<COMMON>                                101
<OTHER-SE>                            7,161
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         30,358
<SALES>                               3,814
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                      3,814
<CGS>                                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        17,620
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    2,161
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    (15,473)
<INCOME-TAX>                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                (15,473)
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                       (15,473)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                        (1.28)
<EPS-DILUTED>                        (1.28)




</TABLE>
NO. 03-17-00628-CR



### BARLOW SMITH,

Appellant
VS. 

### THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee 

### § IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

§ THIRD DISTRICT
§ AUSTIN, TFRAS


### FIRST AMENDED STATE'S MOTION FOR THE CLERK OF 

### THIS COURT T0 TRANSFER THE REPORTER'S RECORD FROM CASE NO. 03-16-00048-CR TO THE CURRENT CASE
This first amended motion is presented by the State of Texas, by and through the undersigned Assistant District Attorney, and in support would show:

I. This is an appeal of the trial court's denial of relief requested by Appellant 

### regarding his probated judgment under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure art. 11.072. Appellant had previously sought habeas relief in the same case wherein the trial court denied Appellant's requested relief and Appellant unsuccessfully sought appeal in Case No. 03-16-00048-CR. The Reporter's Record was filed in Case No. 03-16-00048-CRonFebruary5,2016.ASupplementalReporter'sRecordwasfiled in the same case on April 1, 2016 together with exhibits.

Page I Of 3 ACCEPTED 03-17-00628-CR 21267084 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS 12/13/2017 1:38 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK11.



### Appellant has prepared and filed his briefwithout having made arrangements for a Reporter's Record to be filed in this Case and recites facts within his brief that 

### are outside of both the Reporter's Record and the Clerk's Record for support of his claim. In as much as the claims asserted byAppellant in this Case are related to the claims asserted by Appellant in Case No. 03-16-00048-CR and perhaps some being identical claims to those previously asserted, the State of Texas believes that it 

### would be in the interest of justice for this Court to order the transfer of the Reporter's Record filed in Case No. 03-16-00048-CR on February 5, 2016 together with the Supplemental Reporter's Record filed in the same case on April 1, 2016 

### along with the exhibits therewith to the present Case. 

### PRAYER The State of Texas, in consideration of the facts and circumstances set forth 

### herein above, prays the Court grant this motion and direct the Clerk of this Court to transfer the Reporter's Record and Supplemental Reporter's Record with Exhibits currently on file in Case No. 03-16-00048-CR being styled Ex parte 

### Barlow Smith to the current Case No. 03-17-00628-CR styled Ex parte Barlow Smith.

Page 2 of 3

### Respectfully submitted, 

### OFFICE OF DISTRICT ATTORNEY 33RI' and 424th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS 

### Wiley 8. MCAfee, District Attorney P. 0. Box 725 Llano, Texas 78643 Telephone Telecopier (325)247-5755 (325)247-5274 B}-: ar}-\rfeun-:--` 

### Assistant District Attorney State Bar No. 03353500 

### ATTOENEY FOR APPELLEE


### CERTIFICATE 0F WORD COUNT This is to certify that the pertinent portions of this motion contains 315 words printed in Aldine401BT 14 font, according to the WordperfectTM X8 word count tool.



### CERTIFICATE 0F SERVICH This is to certify that a true copy of the above and foregoing instrument, together with this proof of service hereof, has been forwarded on the 13th day of December 2017, to Barlow Smith, Appellant Pro Se, by eserve.

Page 3 of 3
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-30364

Conference Calendar

 

KARSTON KEELEN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

BURL CAIN,

Defendant-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana 

USDC No. 01-CV-332-D

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

October 29, 2002

Before DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Karston Keelen (“Keelen”), Louisiana state prisoner #125690, 

filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleging that he was denied

protective custody. Keelen filed this interlocutory appeal from

the denial of his motion for a temporary restraining order

(“TRO”) and preliminary injunction. This court lacks

jurisdiction over the denial of an application for a TRO. See

Faulder v. Johnson, 178 F.3d 741, 742 (5th Cir. 1999). However,

the denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction is an
No. 02-30364

-2-

immediately appealable interlocutory order. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1292(a)(1). This court will not address Keelen’s appeal from

the denial of his motion for the appointment of counsel because 

this court previously dismissed Keelen’s appeal. 

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a

preliminary injunction because Keelen has failed to demonstrate a

substantial likelihood that he will prevail on the merits of his

claims. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994); Women’s

Med. Ctr. v. Bell, 248 F.3d 411, 419 n.15 (5th Cir. 2001).

Accordingly, the appeal from the district court’s denial of

a TRO is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. The district

court’s denial of injunctive relief is AFFIRMED.
#### Geitner v. Mullins

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

No. 239P07

Pits’ (Diane and Jacques Geitner) PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA06-547)

Denied 10/11/07
**Exhibit 12.1**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Yong-Kyung Lee, President and Chief Executive Officer of KT Corporation, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F, as amended, of KT Corporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-(e))and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and15d-15(f)) for the company and have:
 (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis report is being prepared;  (b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused suchinternal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, toprovide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and thepreparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generallyaccepted accounting principles;  (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based onsuch evaluation; and  (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’sinternal control over financial reporting; and
5. The company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the company’s auditors and theaudit committee of the company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the company’s internal control over financial reporting.
Date: July 18, 2005   /s/ Yong-Kyung Lee
#### Maurica Tallarida, Appellant, v City of Corning et al., Respondents.

Submitted June 21, 2010;

decided September 2, 2010

Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal denied *[see*14 NY3d 883 (2010)].
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          100080
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    53892
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                153972
<PP&E>                                           21714
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (2171)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  258622
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            50971
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        419644
<OTHER-SE>                                    (211993)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    258622
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   567543
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (567543)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (567543)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (.107)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v David Lance Paulin, Appellant.

Submitted October 18, 2010;

decided October 21, 2010

Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Robert S. Dean, Esq., Center for Appellate Litigation, 74 Trinity Place, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10006 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2675 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2675

 To extend the temporary suspension of duty on acrylic or modoacrylic 
staple fibers, not carded, combed, or otherwise processed for spinning.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            November 2, 2009

   Mr. Burr introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To extend the temporary suspension of duty on acrylic or modoacrylic 
staple fibers, not carded, combed, or otherwise processed for spinning.

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

SECTION 1. ACRYLIC OR MODOACRYLIC STAPLE FIBERS, NOT CARDED, COMBED, OR 
              OTHERWISE PROCESSED FOR SPINNING.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.25.62 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to acrylic or modoacrylic 
staple fibers, not carded, combed, or otherwise processed for spinning) 
is amended by striking the date in the effective period column and 
inserting ``12/31/2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```