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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS FOR THE YEAR ENDED 12/31/99 AND THE CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE YEAR ENDED 12/31/99 AS FILED WITH THIS REPORT
ON FORM 10-K.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           1,787
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   20,776
<ALLOWANCES>                                       883
<INVENTORY>                                     13,474
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                39,025
<PP&E>                                          14,441
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,098
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  73,161
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,617
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            14
<OTHER-SE>                                      60,486
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    73,161
<SALES>                                         69,409
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                69,409
<CGS>                                           21,218
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   61,728
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (370)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,311
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (5,500)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             12,811
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    12,811
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .95
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .88


</TABLE>
#### Michael Perkins, Appellant, v Mark D. McGrain et al., Respondents.

[975 NYS2d 924]

Garry, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Reynolds Fitzgerald, J.), entered December 26, 2012 in Chemung County, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint.

In December 2011, plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, commenced this action pursuant to 42 USC § 1983 against defendants, all Department employees, claiming that they negligently and/or intentionally deprived him of his personal property.* Thereafter, defendants, among other things, moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a valid claim for relief under 42 USC § 1983. Supreme Court granted that motion and dismissed the complaint without prejudice, in the event that plaintiff alternatively chose to file an action in the Court of Claims. Plaintiff appeals, and we affirm.

Contrary to plaintiff’s argument, Supreme Court did not dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction based upon Correction Law § 24, in contravention of *Haywood v Drown*(556 US 729, 736 [2009] [ruling that Correction Law § 24 violates the Supremacy Clause as applied to 42 USC § 1983 claims]; *see Carrington v Moore,*104 AD3d 1091 [2013]). We agree with Supreme Court that the alleged acts by defendants described by plaintiff in the complaint can only be properly characterized as “random and unauthorized,” rather than as “a product of governmental policy” *(Corvetti v Town of Lake Pleasant,*227 *1019AD2d 821, 824 [1996]). It is well settled that claims for *property*loss of this nature “will not support a due process claim redressable under [section] 1983 if ‘adequate state post-deprivation remedies are available,’ ” such as a Court of Claims action *(Davis v New York,*311 Fed Appx 397, 400 [2d Cir 2009], quoting *Hudson v Palmer,*468 US 517, 533 [1984]; *see Bellezza v Holland,*730 F Supp 2d 311, 316 [SD NY 2010]). Thus, we find no basis to disturb Supreme Court’s dismissal of the complaint.

Rose, J.E, Spain and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.

*

 Specifically, petitioner described four incidents whereby he claimed that defendants violated his rights by losing books that were placed in storage, discarding his sneakers, stealing certain law books and lying about the whereabouts and ownership of his property.
No. 915.

#### McIntosh *v.*Wiggins.

March 30, 1942.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     EXHIBIT 3.9


                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                             OF AMENDED AND RESTATED
                          CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
                                OF EPIMMUNE INC.

        Epimmune Inc. (the "Corporation"), a corporation organized and existing
under and by virtue of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware,
does hereby certify:

        FIRST: The name of the Corporation is Epimmune Inc..

        SECOND: The date on which the Corporation's original Certificate of
Incorporation was filed with the Delaware Secretary of State is July 10, 1987.

        THIRD: The Board of Directors of the Corporation, acting in accordance
with the provision of Sections 141 and 242 of the General Corporation Law of the
State of Delaware adopted resolutions at a meeting held on March 4, 1999 to
amend the first paragraph of Article V of the Amended and Restated Certificate
of Incorporation of the Corporation to read in its entirety as follows:

        "The Corporation is authorized to issue two classes of shares
        designated, respectively, "Common Stock" and "Preferred Stock." The
        total number of shares of all classes of stock which the Corporation has
        authority to issue is 35,000,000 shares, consisting of 25,000,000 shares
        of Common Stock, each having a par value of $.01, and 10,000,000 shares
        of Preferred Stock, each having a par value of $.01."

        FOURTH: Thereafter, pursuant to a resolution of the Board of Directors,
this Certificate of Amendment of Amended and Restated Certificate of
Incorporation was submitted to the stockholders of the Corporation and was duly
approved by the required vote of stockholders of the Corporation in accordance
with Sections 228 and 242 of the Delaware General Corporation Law. The total
number of outstanding shares entitled to vote or consent to this Amendment was
6,026,455 shares of Common Stock, 859,666 shares of Series S Preferred Stock and
549,622 shares of Series S-1 Preferred Stock. A majority of the outstanding
shares of Common Stock, Series S Preferred Stock and Series S-1 Preferred Stock,
voting together as a single class, voted in favor of this Certificate of
Amendment of Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation.


<PAGE>   2
        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Epimmune Inc. has caused this Certificate of
Amendment to be signed by its President and attested to by its Assistant
Secretary this 13th day of September, 1999.


                                       EPIMMUNE INC.


                                       /s/ Deborah A. Schueren
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Deborah A. Schueren
                                       President, Chief Executive Officer and
                                       Chief Financial Officer



ATTEST:

/s/ Robert W. Chesnut
-----------------------------
Robert W. Chesnut
Secretary


                                       2.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Najib Almosami, Appellant.

[976 NYS2d 404]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Collini, J), rendered March 2, 2011, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree (two counts), upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes review of his contention that the sentence imposed was excessive *(see People v Bradshaw,*18 NY3d 257 [2011]; *People v Lopez,*6 NY3d 248, 255 [2006]). Rivera, J.E, Hall, Roman and Cohen, JJ., concur.
1

IQCAC Members, IQCS Account Managers

and Committee Liaison

IQCAC Members*

Tami DeFries (FA-100)

Fire and Aviation

3833 S. Development Avenue

Boise, Idaho 83705

Office: 202-208-4147

email: tdefries@blm.gov

Mark Skudlarek/Marlene Eno-Hendren

(FA-300) 

Fire Operations

3833 S. Development Avenue

Boise, Idaho 83705

Office: 208-387-5985/5265

email: mskudlar@blm.gov

email: meno@blm.gov

Kirk Rothwell (FA-500)

National Aviation Office

3833 S. Development Avenue

Boise, Idaho 83705

Office: 208-387-5879

email: mrothwell@blm.gov

Carrie Bilbao/Jessica Gardetto (FA-700) 

Office of External Affairs

3833 S. Development Avenue

Boise, Idaho 83705

Office: 208-387-5457/5458

email: cbilbao@blm.gov

email: jdgardetto@blm.gov

Melissa Towers (FA-200) 

Support Services

3833 S. Development Avenue

Boise, Idaho 83705

Office: 208-387-5421

email: m1towers@blm.gov

Ben Sitz (FA-400)

Budget and Evaluation

3833 S. Development Avenue

Boise, Idaho 83705

Office: 208-387-5161

email: bsitz@blm.gov

Angie Simpson/Justin Boeck (FA-600)

Fire Planning and Fuels Management

3833 S. Development Avenue

Boise, Idaho 83705

Office: 208-387-5381/5326

email: asimpson@blm.gov

email: jboeck@blm.gov

*Individuals listed are the training officer for the division/office.
2

IQCS Account Managers

FA Division/Office Primary IQCS Account

Manager

Backup IQCS Account

Manager*

FA-100/110/120/130 Mark Skudlarek/Marlene

Eno-Hendren

FA-140 Colby Jackson Nicole Oke/Steven Gaskill

FA-200/220/250 Mark Skudlarek/Marlene

Eno-Hendren 

Steven Gaskill

FA-240/241/243/244 Will Abela

FA-262 Alan Hester

FA-300/320/322/324/330/332/333 Mark Skudlarek/Marlene

Eno-Hendren 

FA-321 Josh Clint

FA-331 Marshall Thompson Charlie Loewen

FA-400 Wade Clack Steven Gaskill

FA-410 Mark Skudlarek/Marlene

Eno-Hendren 

Steven Gaskill

FA-500/510 Andrea Vigil

FA-600 Mark Skudlarek/Marlene

Eno-Hendren 

FA-700 Wade Clack Steven Gaskill

BLM Office of Law Enforcement

and Security (employees at NIFC)

Mark Skudlarek/Marlene

Eno-Hendren

NOC Employees (FA-260) Office

Representative, Mark

Skudlarek/Marlene EnoHendren 

All other NIFC BLM Employees Mark Skudlarek/Marlene

Eno-Hendren 

* Mark Skudlarek (FA-324), Marlene Eno-Hendren (FA-324) and Jeff Arnberger (FA-320) serve 

as backup IQCS account managers.

Committee Liaison

Wade Clack, IQCS Account Manager 

National Interagency Coordination Center

3833 S. Development Avenue

Boise, Idaho 83705

Office: 208-387-5400

email: wclack@blm.gov

Updated 2/3/22
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1


                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on 
Form S-8 (No. 333-01112) pertaining to the EquiVision, Inc. Stock Option Plan 
and all non-qualified stock options and in the Registration Statements and in 
the related prospectuses of EquiMed, Inc. (successor to EquiVision, Inc.) on 
Form S-3 (No. 333-01096 and No. 333-12595) and on Form S-4 (No. 333-12773) of 
our reports dated May 21, 1997 related to the consolidated financial statements 
and financial statement Schedule II of EquiMed, Inc. (successor to EquiVision, 
Inc.) included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 
31, 1996.


                                                           /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP
                                                               ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Atlanta, Georgia
June 6, 1997
No. 841.

#### Reeves *v.*Beardall, Executor.

February 9, 1942.

*Mr. Dan*
      *791
      *iel Burke*for petitioner. *Messrs. Charles R. Scott*and *Charles P. Dickinson*for respondent.

*790Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2970 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow rehabilitation 

expenditures for public school buildings to qualify for rehabilitation credit. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 29, 2010 

Mr. WEBB (for himself and Mr. WARNER) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow rehabilitation expenditures for public school buildings to qualify for rehabilitation credit. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Rehabilitation of His5 toric Schools Act of 2010’’. 

6 SEC. 2. QUALIFICATION OF REHABILITATION EXPENDI7 TURES FOR PUBLIC SCHOOL BUILDINGS FOR 

8 REHABILITATION CREDIT. 

9 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 47(c)(2)((B)(v) of the In10 ternal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to tax-exempt use 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2970 IS

1 property) is amended by adding at the end the following 

2 new subclause: 

3 ‘‘(III) CLAUSE NOT TO APPLY TO

4 PUBLIC SCHOOLS.—This clause shall 

5 not apply in the case of any building 

6 which is a qualified public educational 

7 facility (as defined in section 

8 142(k)(1), determined without regard 

9 to subparagraph (B) thereof) and 

10 used as such both before and after 

11 such expenditure.’’. 

12 (b) REPORT.—Not later than the date which is 5 

13 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Sec14 retary of the Treasury, after consultation with the heads 

15 of appropriate Federal agencies, shall report to Congress 

16 on the effects resulting from the amendment made by sub17 section (a). 

18 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

19 this section shall apply to property placed in service after 

20 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
## United States Court of Appeals **For the Eighth Circuit**

___________________________
No. 22

- 3563

___________________________
United States of America

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.
Christopher Funchess, also known as C- Murder

Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids

____________
Submitted: April 11, 2023 Filed: May 15, 2023 [Unpublished]

____________
Before B ENTON, GRASZ, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.

____________
PER CURIAM.

After repeatedly violating the conditions of supervised release, Christopher
Funchess received a seven

- month prison sentence. Although he questions the
seriousness of the violations, we affirm.-2- We conclude that the district court 1 did not abuse its discretion when it sent Funchess back to prison

. See United States v. Melton , 666 F.3d 513, 516 (8th Cir. 2012) (reviewing for an abuse of discretion). For one thing, he repeatedly used marijuana , an illegal drug under federal law, even though he was required to “refrain
from any unlawful use of a controlled substance.” (E mphasis added); s ee 21 U.S.C. § 812(c)

. He is not entitled to a break just because the illegal drug happened to be marijuana. See United States v. Schostag , 895 F.3d 1025, 1027

– 28 (8th Cir. 2018) (explaining that the “use of marijuana

— even for medical purposes

— contravenes federal law”). For another, he tried to cover up his drug use by “ diluting ” his test samples

. A “ pervasive unwillingness” to follow drug

- testing conditions is serious,
all the more so for someone like Funchess with a history of drug dealing. Melton

, 666 F.3d at 516 ; see United States v. Graves , 914 F.2d 159, 160

– 61 (8th Cir. 1990) (per curiam) (affirming a revocation sentence after a defendant missed drug

- testing appointments ).

We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court.

_____________________________

1 The Honorable Linda J. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa.
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

UNITED STATES ) No. ACM 40066

Appellee )

)

v. )

) ORDER

Allan L. BROWN )

Air Force Cadet )

U.S. Air Force )

Appellant ) Special Panel

Appellant’s general court-martial took place on 29 August 2019 and 5–16 

October 2020. The original record of trial was docketed with this court on 15 

April 2021. Volume 1 of the original record of trial includes one disc that contains audio recordings of the closed proceedings of the court-martial, and two 

discs that contain audio recordings of the open proceedings on 29 August 2019 

and 5–9 October 2020. However, recordings of the open proceedings from 10–

16 October 2020 are not included. A certified verbatim written transcript of the 

proceedings is attached to the record.

Rule for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) 1112(b) provides that “[t]he record of trial 

in every general and special court-martial shall include: (1) A substantially 

verbatim recording of the court-martial proceedings except sessions closed for 

deliberations and voting . . . .”

Appellant’s brief to this court, the Government’s answer, and Appellant’s 

reply brief did not address the omitted recordings. On 6 October 2022, this 

court issued an order to the Government to show good cause as to why this 

court should not return the record of trial for correction of the record in accordance with R.C.M. 1112(d). On 19 October 2022, the Government submitted its 

timely answer to the court’s order. The Government agreed with the court that 

the recorded proceedings for 10–16 October 2020 are “missing” from the record.

However, the Government contends remand is unnecessary because the attached verbatim transcript of the entire proceedings enables this court to perform its Article 66, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 866, review. Nevertheless, we find remand appropriate in order to correct this substantial deficiency in the record 

of Appellant’s court-martial.

Accordingly, it is by the court on this 25th day of October, 2022,

ORDERED:
United States v. Brown, No. ACM 40066

2

Pursuant to R.C.M. 1112(d), the record of trial is returned to the military 

judge for correction of the deficiency identified above—the omission of the substantially verbatim recording of multiple days of the court-martial proceedings. Thereafter, the record of trial will be returned to the court for completion 

of appellate review under Article 66, UCMJ. Appellate counsel for the Government shall inform the court not later than 15 December 2022, in writing, of 

the status of compliance with the court’s order unless the record of trial has 

been returned to the court prior to that date.

FOR THE COURT

CAROL K. JOYCE

Clerk of the Court
Exhibit
      10.4

     

    OUTSIDE
      DIRECTOR COMPENSATION PACKAGE

     

    Effective
      January 1, 2007, Wuhan General Group (China), Inc. (the “Company”) shall pay
      each outside director who is independent in accordance with the Nasdaq and
      SEC
      rules governing director independence (an “Eligible Director”) the following for
      service to the Company:

     

    
      
        	
                Annual
                  Cash Retainer

              	 	
                $

              	
                15,000

              	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	
                Attendance
                  Fee for Each Board or Committee Meeting attended
                  by Eligible Directors residing in Wuhan, China or attended
                  by telephone for Eligible Directors residing outside
                  of Wuhan, China

              	 	
                
                

                $

              	
                
                

                1,000

              	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	
                Attendance
                  Fee for Each Board or Committee Meeting attended
                  in person by an Eligible Director residing outside of
                  Wuhan, China

              	 	
                
                

                $

              	
                
                

                5,000

              	 


      

    

    


    In
      addition, the Chairman of the Company’s Audit Committee will receive an
      additional annual fee of $5,000. 

     

    In
      addition, each Eligible Director will receive the option to purchase 20,000
      shares of the Company’s Common Stock per year. The stock options will vest in
      four equal quarterly installments over one year.

     

    The
      Company will also reimburse all reasonable out-of-pocket expenses that are
      incurred in connection with service to the Company.

     

    If
      the
      Company’s Common Stock becomes listed on NASDAQ, the annual cash retainer will
      increase to $20,000 per year.
**Smokejumper Unit (2024)**

**Checklist #13**

**For the National Preparedness Review, you will need to have the following items available for review:**

**MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION**

***Key Code: E = Exceeds Standard, M = Meets Standard, NI = Needs Improvement, NR = Not Reviewed***

**FACILITIES**

***Key Code: E = Exceeds Standard, M = Meets Standard, NI = Needs Improvement, NR = Not Reviewed***

**AIR OPERATIONS**

***Key Code: E = Exceeds Standard, M = Meets Standard, NI = Needs Improvement, NR = Not Reviewed***

**OPERATIONS**

***Key Code: E = Exceeds Standard, M = Meets Standard, NI = Needs Improvement, NR = Not Reviewed***

****

**TRAINING**

***Key Code: E = Exceeds Standard, M = Meets Standard, NI = Needs Improvement, NR = Not Reviewed***

**EMS AND FIRST AID**

***Key Code: E = Exceeds Standard, M = Meets Standard, NI = Needs Improvement, NR = Not Reviewed***

**LOFT SECTION**

***Key Code: E = Exceeds Standard, M = Meets Standard, NI = Needs Improvement, NR = Not Reviewed***

**PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT (PPE)**

***Key Code: E = Exceeds Standard, M = Meets Standard, NI = Needs Improvement, NR = Not Reviewed***

Smokejumper Unit	14	Revised April 2024

# image1.png