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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         166,860
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   55,207
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               444,704
<PP&E>                                       1,546,541
<DEPRECIATION>                                  23,632
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,659,944
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          886,023
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      3,500
<COMMON>                                         9,204
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,711,217
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,659,944
<SALES>                                        673,660
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               673,660
<CGS>                                        3,036,231
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,036,231
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                93,375
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,455,946)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,455,946)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,455,946)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.52)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.52)
        

</TABLE>
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Transportation

###### Office of the Secretary

                    The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart B (formerly Subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural Regulations (                    *See*14 CFR 301.201*et seq.*). The due date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motions to Modify Scope are set forth below for each application. Following the Answer period DOT may process the application by expedited procedures. Such procedures may consist of the adoption of a show-cause order, a tentative order, or in appropriate cases a final order without further proceedings.                

*Docket Number:*                     DOT-OST-2004-17315.                

*Date Filed:*                     June 1, 2009.                

*Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify Scope:*                     June 22, 2009.                

*Description:*                     Application of Cargojet Airways, Ltd. (“Cargojet”) requesting the Department amend and renew its exemption authority, and issue it a foreign air carrier permit, authorizing it to engage in: (1) Foreign scheduled and charter air transportation of persons,                           ( print page 30662)                        property and mail from points behind Canada, via Canada and intermediate points, to a point or points in the United States and beyond; (2) foreign scheduled and charter air transportation of property and mail between any point or points in the United States and any other point or points; and (3) other charter operations. Cargojet also requests a statement of authorization to conduct intermodal cargo service between any U.S. point and any other U.S. point.                

Barbara J. Hairston,

Supervisory Dockets Officer, Docket Operations, Alternate Federal Register Liaison.

[FR Doc. E9-15108 Filed 6-25-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Gerald Mac Lowrey, Appellant

No. 06-14-00172-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 6th District Court of 

Lamar County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 25492). 

Opinion delivered by Justice Moseley, 

Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Burgess

participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, Gerald Mac Lowrey, has adequately indicated his inability to 

pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED JULY 14, 2015

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
#### SHAFER v. RICHMOND INS. CO.

No. 1401 Civil Action.

District Court, W. D, Pennsylvania.

July 10, 1941.

H. C. A. Hofacker, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for plaintiff.

Patterson, Crawford, Arensberg & Dunn, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for defendant.

SCHOONMAKER, District Judge.

This is an action on a fire-insurance policy issued by defendant to the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed her complaint on May 9, 1941; and the defendant filed its aifswer on May 27, 1941. The case is now at issue on the non-jury trial calendar.

On July 2, 1941, at the calling of the non-jury calendar, the plaintiff filed a petition for a jury trial. Defendant opposed this petition, on the ground that the demand for a jury trial was not filed within the time prescribed by Rule 38(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c. This is true, but the plaintiff’s petition is addressed to the court under Rule 39(b), which permits the court in its discretion, upon motion, to order a trial by jury on any or all issues involved in this case.

We have fully considered this application, and are of the opinion that this demand for a jury trial comes too late, and that there are no issues involved in the casé which will necessitate a jury trial.

The petition for a jury trial will therefore be denied.
EXHIBIT
32.2





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Atlas America Public #15-2006 (B) L.P.
(the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Matthew A. Jones, Chief Financial Officer of the Partnership, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
            the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and


(2)
            the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Partnership.





By:
            /s/ Matthew A.
      JonesName:
            Matthew
      A. JonesTitle:
            Chief
      Financial Officer of the Managing General PartnerDate:
            May
      14, 2009
#### Samuel Tomaino, Appellant, v Thomas Marotta, Jr., Respondent.

Submitted July 29, 2013;

decided September 10, 2013

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution *(see Cuadrado v New York City Tr. Auth.,*65 AD3d 434 [2009], *lv dismissed*14 NY3d 748 [2010]).
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6198
JOHN J. GARRIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MACEO WILLIAMS, Parole Commissioner; FRANK PAPPAS, Parole Commissioner, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CA-96-4045-JFM) Submitted: June 19, 1997 Decided: June 30, 1997 Before WILKINS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John J. Garris, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant, a Maryland inmate, app eals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the recordand the district court's opinion and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Garris v. Williams , No. CA-96-4045-JFM (D. Md. Jan. 15, 1997). 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.

DISMISSED
#### In the Matter of Alvin Rosenthal et al., as Trustees on Behalf of the Helmsley Charitable Trust. The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals et al., Proposed Intervenors-Appellants; David Panzirer et al., Respondents.

Submitted December 3, 2012;

decided February 19, 2013

Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from that portion of the Appellate Division order that affirmed the denial of intervention, dismissed upon the ground that such portion of the order does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution; motion for leave to appeal otherwise denied.

Judge Smith taking no part.
Exhibit 32.2
                           CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

      In connection with the Quarterly Report of Orient Paper Inc., a Nevada
corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,
2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), Jing
Hao, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant to
ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350), that to his
knowledge:

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

            (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
      Company.

November 13, 2008


/s/ Jing Hao
-----------------------------------------
Jing Hao, Chief Financial Officer


[A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Orient Paper Inc. and will be retained by Orient Paper, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]
#### Women’s Interart Center, Inc., Plaintiff, v New York City Economic Development Corporation et al., Defendants. Women’s Interart Center, Inc., Appellant, v Clinton Housing Development Fund Corp., Respondent, and City of New York, Intervenor-Respondent.

Submitted December 3, 2012;

decided February 12, 2013

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.

Judge Rivera taking no part.
IV 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 181 

Expressing support for designation of May 30 as ‘‘National Bartter Syndrome 

Day’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 6, 2019 

Mr. RYAN submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Reform 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing support for designation of May 30 as ‘‘National 

Bartter Syndrome Day’’. 

Whereas Bartter syndrome is a rare kidney condition that 

causes an imbalance of potassium, sodium, chloride, and 

other molecules in the body; 

Whereas the antenatal form of Bartter syndrome, which begins before birth, is often life-threatening and is characterized by abnormally high levels of amniotic fluid surrounding the affected fetus, premature delivery, and salt 

loss; 

Whereas the classical form of Bartter syndrome, which begins 

in early childhood and tends to be less severe, causes individuals to experience fatigue, muscle weakness, growth 

delay, and developmental delay; 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 181 IH 

Whereas Bartter syndrome likely affects approximately one 

per million people worldwide, although the exact prevalence is unknown; 

Whereas increased awareness and research of Bartter syndrome will promote accurate and early recognition of the 

disorder and help families with children suffering from 

this condition cope with the associated difficulties; and 

Whereas May 30 would be an appropriate date to designate 

as ‘‘National Bartter Syndrome Day’’: Now, therefore, be 

it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives supports 

2 the designation of ‘‘National Bartter Syndrome Day’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<CIK> 0000012355
<NAME> THE BLACK & DECKER CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-29-1997
<CASH>                                         126,300
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  719,600<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    898,100
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,924,700
<PP&E>                                         878,600<F2>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,251,300
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,275,000
<BONDS>                                      1,796,900
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        47,300
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,606,800
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,251,300
<SALES>                                      2,197,200
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,197,200
<CGS>                                        1,412,300
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,019,600
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              65,400
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                110,500
<INCOME-TAX>                                    38,700
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             71,800
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    71,800
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .76<F3><F4>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .75<F4>
<FN>
<F1>Represents net trade receivables.
<F2>Represents net property, plant, and equipment.
<F3>Represents basic earnings per share.
<F4>Restated to reflect the Corporation's adoption of Statement of
    Financial Accounting Standards No. 128, "Earnings Per Share".
</FN>


</TABLE>
EXHIBT 10.3




 


PROMISSORY NOTE


 


	
$300,000.00

	
December 3, 2012











For value received money due to Pegasus Funds, LLC. as provided for in the May 1st, 2012 Agreement between Clark Scott LLC., predecessor to Core Resource Management, Inc. ("Core") and Pegasus Funds LLC. ("Pegasus"), Core Resource (the "Maker") agrees to pay Pegasus (the "Holder") $300,000 in 24 equal monthly installments and secure the Holder with CD's or similar collateral if requested. Installments on this non-interest bearing Note will begin on the first day of the month immediately following the successful completion of at  least $2,000,000  in initial capital into Core.


 


Said collateral will be reduced by 50% on the first anniversary of the initial monthly installment and released on the second anniversary of the initial monthly installment.


 



THIS NOTE SHALL  BE GOVERNED  BY AND CONSTUED AND ENFORCED  IN ACCORDANCE  WITH THE  LAWS  OF THE  STATE  OF TEXAS,  APPLICABLE TO AGREEMENTS  EXECUTED, DELIVERED AND PERFORMED IN THE CITY OF DALLAS,  DALLAS  COUNTY, TEXAS WITHOUT  GIVING  EFFECT  TO THE CONFLICT  OF  LAWS  RULES  OR  CHOICE  OF  LAWS  THEREOF.  VENUE  FOR ANY ACTION  ARISING  HEREUNDER  SHALL  BE IN DALLAS  COUNTY, TEXAS. THIS NOTE IS ENFORCEABLE IN ANY COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION.




 


THIS NOTE REPRESENTS THE FINAL PROVISIONS OF THE MAY 1sT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES AND MAY NOT BE CONTRADICTED BY EVIDENCE OF PRIOR CONTEMPORANEOUS, OR SUBSEQUENT ORAL AGREEMENTS OF THE PARTIES.








	
EXECUTED as of the date first set forth above.

	
 


	
 

	
 


	
/s/

	
 


	Robert Shuey III	
	 	
	
Pegasus Funds LLC

	
 


	
/s/

	
 


	James Clark	
	
Clark Scott LLC/Core Resource Management
# Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas

January 19, 2018

No. 04

- 17

- 00035

- CV

Robert MEDINA and Christina Medina

,

Appellants

v.

Timothy K. BOWERS

, Appellee

From the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013

- CI

- 11 752 Honorable Michael E. Mery, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The appellants ’ motion for extension of time to file reply brief is hereby GRANTED. Time is extended to February 11, 2018.

_________________________________ Irene Rios , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunt o set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 19th day of January, 20 18

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
Filed 7/15/15 In re K.H. CA2/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

In re K.H., a Person Coming Under the 

Juvenile Court Law.

 B262095

 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. 

 No. MJ22754)

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

K.H.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Daniel 

Nancy S. Pogue, Commissioner. Affirmed.

Courtney M. Selan, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_________________________
2

The juvenile court sustained a petition filed under Welfare and Institutions Code 

602, alleging that minor K.H., age 13, committed a lewd act upon a child under the age of 

14, in violation of Penal Code section 288, subdivision (a). Minor was ordered suitably 

placed. A timely notice of appeal was filed. 

This court appointed counsel for minor on appeal. Appointed counsel filed a brief 

raising no issues, but requesting this court to independently review the record for 

arguable contentions pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Minor was 

advised by letter from this court of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days. 

Minor has not filed a supplemental brief with this court.

We have completed our independent review of the record. There are no arguable 

appellate issues.

The jurisdictional order is supported by substantial evidence. Without going into 

unnecessary detail, it is sufficient for purposes of this appeal to indicate that minor 

threatened a seven-year-old boy during a sleepover, and then attempted to sodomize the 

boy and made the boy touch minor’s penis. After being advised of his constitutional 

rights under Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436, minor filled out a form indicating 

he knew the wrongfulness of his conduct. (See In re Gladys R. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 855.) 

Minor initially denied the alleged conduct, but ultimately admitted that he attempted to 

sodomize the victim. 

The disposition of suitable placement was not an abuse of discretion. The reports 

contained in the clerk’s transcript reflect minor’s mental health issues, unstable family 

situation, poor school attendance, and placements outside of the home. This issues, 

considered in light of the serious nature of the allegations in the petition, amply support 

the dispositional order.
3

The judgment is affirmed. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259.)

KRIEGLER, J. 

We concur: 

MOSK, Acting P. J.

KIRSCHNER, J.*

 

*

Judge of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice 

pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Donna M. Wiley, Appellant.

[975 NYS2d 922]

McCarthy, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County (Breslin, J.), rendered June 5, 2012, convicting defendant upon her plea of guilty of the crime of grand larceny in the third degree.

In satisfaction of a two-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to grand larceny in the third degree, waived the right to appeal her conviction and sentence and was subsequently sentenced to 2 to 6 years in prison. Defendant now appeals, contending that she was denied the effective assistance of counsel and the sentence imposed was harsh and excessive.

We affirm. While defendant’s argument that she received the ineffective assistance of counsel survives her appeal waiver, we find it unpreserved for our review in light of the absence of proof on this record that she made a motion to withdraw her guilty plea or vacate her judgment of conviction *(see People v Youngblood,*107 AD3d 1159, 1160 [2013], *lv denied*21 NY3d 1078 [2013]; *People v Lazore,*102 AD3d 1017, 1017-1018 [2013]; *People v Walton,*101 AD3d 1489, 1490 [2012], *lv denied*20 NY3d 1105 [2013]). Defendant is precluded from raising her claim of harsh and excessive sentence given her unchallenged waiver of the right to appeal *(see People v Mattison,*94 AD3d 1157, 1158 [2012]; *People v Shurock,*83 AD3d 1342, 1344 [2011]).

*999Rose, J.E, Spain and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.