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

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          42,480
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       1,312,304
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,538,622
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           84,280
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,454,342
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,538,622
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                46,673
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (46,673)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (46,673)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (46,673)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (11.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (11.11)


</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

JOSE EDUARDO OROZCO a/k/a JOSE

MARTINEZ OROZCO,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 12

- 00051

- CR

Appeal from the

Criminal District Court No. 1

of Tarrant County, Texas

(TC# 1208005D)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. This decision shall be certified

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 3RD DAY OF APRIL, 2013.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez , JJ.
Order entered May 21, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-01520-CV

ERIC DRAKE, Appellant

V.

TRAVELERS, ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the 68th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 13-01062-C

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s May 19, 2014 motion for an extension of time to file a 

brief. Appellant’s brief was due on April 23, 2014. Appellant seeks an extension to August 1, 

2014. We GRANT appellant’s motion TO THE EXTENT that appellant shall file his brief ON 

OR BEFORE JUNE 23, 2014. 

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS  OF BADGER  PAPER MILLS,  INC. AS OF AND FOR THE TWELVE  MONTHS ENDED
DECEMBER  31,  1998  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-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         2229
<SECURITIES>                                   996
<RECEIVABLES>                                  5662
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    6201
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               17854
<PP&E>                                         65088
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (37797)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 47999
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          10508
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       2700
<OTHER-SE>                                     200
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   47999
<SALES>                                        65727
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               65727
<CGS>                                          58505
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  62836
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (946)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             1196
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                2641
<INCOME-TAX>                                   897
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            1744
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1744
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .89
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        

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

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000
       
<S>                             <C>              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS            6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1998      DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                  MAR-01-1998      JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                    JUN-30-1998      JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                          57757            57757
<SECURITIES>                    0                0
<RECEIVABLES>                   4472             4472
<ALLOWANCES>                    0                0
<INVENTORY>                     12305            12305
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                75137            75137
<PP&E>                          327806           327806
<DEPRECIATION>                  99337            99337
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  303731           303731
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           16336            16336
<BONDS>                         31               31
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0                0
<PREFERRED>                     0                0
<COMMON>                        3                3
<OTHER-SE>                      242397           242397
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    303731           303731
<SALES>                         11808            22611
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                11808            22611
<CGS>                           14142            29175
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   14142            29175
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                (167)            317
<LOSS-PROVISION>                0                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              171              363
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 (2338)           (7244)
<INCOME-TAX>                    0                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             (2338)           (7244)
<DISCONTINUED>                  0                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0                0
<CHANGES>                       0                0
<NET-INCOME>                    (2338)           (7244)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                   (0.08)           (0.25)
<EPS-DILUTED>                   (0.08)           (0.25)
        

</TABLE>
NO. 07-10-0138-CR

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL D

	APRIL 16, 2010

	______________________________

	CHRISTOPHER ELLIS FORTUNE,

Appellant

	v.

	THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 19TH DISTRICT COURT OF McLENNAN COUNTY;

	NO. 2008-1253-C1; HON. RALPH T. STROTHER, PRESIDING

	_______________________________

***On Motion to Dismiss***

***_______________________________***

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ.

Appellant Christopher Ellis Fortune, by and through his attorney, has filed a motion to dismiss his appeal because he no longer desires to prosecute it.  Without passing on the merits of the case, we grant the motion to dismiss pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a) and dismiss the appeal.  Having dismissed the appeal at appellants request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith.

Do not publish.					Per Curiam
Exhibit 32.1

Certification

Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the undersigned hereby certifies that:

> 
(1) I have reviewed the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of Inland Land Appreciation Fund, L.P. (the "Report") to which this statement is an Exhibit;

(2) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(3) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Inland Land Appreciation Fund, L.P.

 

By: Inland Real Estate Investment Corporation       General Partner

/S/ Brenda G. Gujral                                   

Name: Brenda G. GujralTitle: President of the General Partner and         principal executive officer of Inland Land Appreciation Fund, L.PDate: March 26, 2004
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Shelia Gail SMITH, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-4194.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 18, 2006.

Decided: May 30, 2006.

Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, William C. Ingram, First Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Sandra J. Hairston, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

*389Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Shelia Gail Smith entered a conditional plea of guilty to possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a felony offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000). The district court imposed an eighteen-month sentence. On appeal, Smith contends that the district court erred in denying her motion to dismiss the indictment, because her prior conviction was not punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, and therefore did not qualify as a felony offense. Specifically, Smith asserts that the district court erred in finding that her June 21, 2004 conviction in North Carolina for possession of cocaine was punishable by more than one year in prison, and therefore qualified as a felony drug offense. See 21 U.S.C. § 802(44) (2000). While the maximum aggravated punishment for this Class I conviction was fifteen months’ imprisonment, Smith notes that, based on her criminal history, and in the absence of aggravating factors, the maximum sentence she could have received was eight months. Smith thus maintains that her sentence could not have exceeded a year, and that this conviction does not qualify as a felony conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).

Smith concedes that this argument is foreclosed by our opinion in *United, States v. Harp,*406 F.3d 242, 246-47 (4th Cir. 2005) (holding that *United States v. Jones,*195 F.3d 205 (4th Cir.1999), is still viable after *Blakely v. Washington,*542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531,159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), and *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005)), and we agree. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not err. *See id.*at 246 (reaffirming that “a prior North Carolina conviction was for ‘a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year’ if any defendant charged with that crime could receive a sentence of more than one year.” (internal citation omitted)).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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.*
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 115 (Wednesday, June 17, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 28737]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-14300]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1 ]


Hunt Gold Corporation, F/K/A Prime Time Group, Inc.; Order of 
Suspension of Trading

June 15, 2009.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 
Hunt Gold Corporation, f/k/a Prime Time Group, Inc. (``Hunt Gold'') 
because questions have been raised about the accuracy and adequacy of 
publicly disseminated information concerning, among other things, Hunt 
Gold's gold mining exploration business.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the 
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the 
securities of Hunt Gold.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the 
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in Hunt Gold securities 
is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on June 15, 2009, 
through 11:59 p.m. EDT on June 26, 2009.

    By the Commission.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-14300 Filed 6-15-09; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
Order filed August 10, 2021 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-20-00813-CR

____________

JASPER DAVIS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 262nd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1573130

ORDER

Appellant is represented by appointed counsel, Celeste Blackburn. 

Appellant’s brief was originally due April 29, 2021. We granted three extensions

of time to file appellant’s brief until August 2, 2021. When we granted the third

extension, we noted that no further extensions would be granted absent exceptional 

circumstances. No brief was filed. 

Accordingly, we order Celeste Blackburn to file a brief with the clerk of this 

court on or before August 24, 2012. If Celeste Blackburn does not timely file the 

brief as ordered, the court may issue an order requiring appointment of new 

counsel.

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Jewell, Spain, and Wilson.
#### ANDERSON v. BRADY et al.

No. 4081.

District Court, E. D. Kentucky.

Feb. 12, 1947.

See also 5 F.R.D. 85.

Nichols, Wood, Marx & Ginter, of Cincinnati, Ohio, for plaintiff.

Jouett & Metcalf, of Winchester, Ky., for defendants.

SWINFORD, District Judge.

The Commercial Deposit Bank of Winchester, Kentucky, is the executor of M. Thomas McEldowney. McEldowney died the owner of 250 shares of Banco Kentucky stock. Suit was instituted February 19, 1936, against the executor in the name of Commercial Bank, executor of M. Thomas McEldowney. Process was served upon the Commercial Deposit Bank and due return was made. On October 18, 1944, judgment was had against the executor in the name given in the complaint, to wit; Commercial Bank, executor of M. Thomas McEldowney. No answer or plea had been filed by the bank. The plaintiff now offers amendment to correct the name of the bank to that of Commercial Deposit Bank. The bank objects to the filing of the amendment on two grounds. First, that the term of court at which the judgment was entered and all orders taken has long since expired, and that the Court now has no authority to permit the filing of the amendment. Second, that the misnomer is a matter of substance and not of form and that the defendant’s failure to make timely objection to the incorrect name does not prevent its now resisting the- filing of the amendment. The Court has read with interest and appreciation the excellent briefs filed by the defendant but cannot agree with the conclusions urged.

An extended discussion of the relative meaning of various rules and their dependence and compliment of each other would serve no useful purpose.

*No*one was mislead or deceived. The proper party was actually served with process. The Commercial Deposit Bank even though named as the Commercial Bank was the only executor of McEldowney. His estate, so far as the record discloses, owed the amount claimed as assessment on the shares of *stock on*which suit was instituted. Rule 6(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, provides that the expiration of the term of court does not affect the power of the Court to do any authorized act in any civil action which has been pending before it.

Rule 60(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, authorizes correction *at any time*of clerical mistakes in judgments or other parts of the record and errors therein arising from oversight or omission. United States v. Mayer, etc., 235 U.S. 55, 35 S.Ct. 16, 59 L.Ed. 129; Grannis v. Ordean, 234 *588U.S. 385, 34 S.Ct. 779, 58 L.Ed. 1363; 39 Am.Jur. 982, § 109; Bowles v. Marx Hide Co., D.C., 4 F.R.D. 297; University of Louisville v. Hammock, 127 Ky. 564, 106 S.W. 219, 14 L.R.A.,N.S., 784,. 128 Am.St. Rep. 355; Studebaker Corporation of America v. Dodds & Runge, 161 Ky., 542, 171 S.W. 167.

It is therefore proper that the amendment be filed and an order to that effect is this day entered.
Document

Exhibit 10.8

QuidelOrtho Corporation
Restricted Stock Unit Award Grant Notice
(Amended and Restated 2018 Equity Incentive Plan)
Pursuant to Section 6.10 of the QuidelOrtho Corporation Amended and Restated 2018 Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), QuidelOrtho Corporation (the “Company”) hereby awards to you a time-vested Restricted Stock Unit Award covering the number of shares of the Company’s Common Stock set forth below (the “Award”).  This Award will be evidenced by this Grant Notice and the attached Restricted Stock Unit Award Terms and Conditions (the “Terms and Conditions”). 
Recipient:            
Date of Grant:            
Number of Shares Subject to Award:            

Vesting and Settlement:  Subject to the applicable tax withholding requirements, the Restricted Stock Units will vest and be delivered at the time set forth on Exhibit A.


Additional Terms/Acknowledgements:  The undersigned acknowledges receipt of, and understands and agrees to, this Restricted Stock Unit Award Grant Notice, the Restricted Stock Unit Award Terms and Conditions, the Plan and the Plan Prospectus.  You further acknowledge that as of the Date of Grant, this Restricted Stock Unit Award Grant Notice, the Restricted Stock Unit Award Terms and Conditions, the Plan and the Plan Prospectus set forth the entire understanding between the Company and you regarding the acquisition of shares of Common Stock of the Company and supersede all prior oral and written agreements on that subject with the exception of Awards previously granted and delivered to you under the Plan.  You further acknowledge that there may be adverse tax consequences upon the vesting or settlement of the Restricted Stock Units or disposition of the underlying shares and that you have been advised to consult a tax advisor prior to such vesting, settlement or disposition.
QuidelOrtho Corporation    Recipient:
By:             
    Signature    Signature
Title:             Date:     
Date:    
Attachments/Incorporated by Reference:     Restricted Stock Unit Award Terms and Conditions and Amended and Restated 2018 Equity Incentive Plan










Exhibit A
VESTING SCHEDULE


Subject to your continued employment, the time-vested Restricted Stock Units will vest on the following dates:


Units:            Vest Dates:


                    
                    
                    
                    


Within sixty (60) days following the date on which the Restricted Stock Units vest, the Company shall issue and deliver to you the number of shares of Common Stock equal to the number of vested Restricted Stock Units.
#### Lori Schlessinger et al., Appellants, v Valspar Corporation, Respondent.

Decided August 30, 2012

*See*686 F3d 81.

Certification of questions by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, pursuant to section 500.27 of the Rules of Practice of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.27), *993accepted and the issues presented are to be considered after briefing and argument.

Concur: Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones.
Exhibit 31.1











CERTIFICATION






I, Gary Kouletas, certify that:




1.     I have reviewed this quarterly report of Form 10-Q of Hybred International, Inc.




2.
Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report.




3.
Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report.




4.
I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and I have:




a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, is made known to me by others within the company, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared; and




b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements fort external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles; and




c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this Report based upon such evaluation; and




d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.




5.
I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function);




a) All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant’s auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and




b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls.






Date: ...................., 2011






/s/ Gary Kouletas


Gary Kouletas


President (Principal Executive Officer)