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

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         185,235
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,488,451
<ALLOWANCES>                                   297,000
<INVENTORY>                                    105,193
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,566,906
<PP&E>                                       2,210,275
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,050,751
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,282,954
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,929,148
<BONDS>                                      3,305,251
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            2,949
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,012
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,044,595
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,282,954
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            18,044,213
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               23,126,303
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,598
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                22,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             714,997
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (5,749,604)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.65)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.00)


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 11**

 

**STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS**

 

Basic earnings per common share of $0.12 for the three months ended June 30, 2005 were calculated by dividing net income of $348,000 for the period April1, 2005 to June 30, 2005 by the weighted-average number of common shares outstanding of 2,950,649. 

 

Basic earnings per common share of $0.12 for the six months ended June 30, 2005 were calculated by dividing net income of $697,000 for the period January1, 2005 to June 30, 2005 by the weighted-average number of common shares outstanding of 2,950,495.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 256 

To waive certain prohibitions with respect to nationals of Cuba coming to 

the United States to play organized professional baseball. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 7, 2011 

Mr. SERRANO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each 

case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of 

the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To waive certain prohibitions with respect to nationals of 

Cuba coming to the United States to play organized 

professional baseball. 

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 ‘‘Baseball Diplomacy 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REMOVAL OF CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS. 

7 (a) RESTRICTION ON EMBARGO AUTHORITY.—The 

8 authorities of section 620(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 256 IH

1 of 1961, those authorities under section 5(b) of the Trad2 ing with the Enemy Act that were being exercised with 

3 respect to Cuba on July 1, 1977, as a result of a national 

4 emergency declared before that date, and are being exer5 cised on the date of the enactment of this Act, and section 

6 203 of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act 

7 may not be exercised to regulate or prohibit— 

8 (1) those transactions permitted under section 

9 515.571 of title 31, Code of Federal Regulations, by 

10 or on behalf of a Cuban national who enters the 

11 United States from Cuba on a visa issued under sec12 tion 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b) of the Immigration and 

13 Nationality Act for the purpose of playing organized 

14 professional baseball; and 

15 (2) a Cuban national described in paragraph 

16 (1) from returning to Cuba with the earnings made 

17 in playing organized professional baseball. 

18 (b) RESTRICTION ON IMMIGRATION AUTHORITY.— 

19 The authority contained in section 212(f) of the Immigra20 tion and Nationality Act may not be used to deny a visa 

21 described in subsection (a)(1) to a Cuban national for the 

22 purpose of playing organized professional baseball. 

23 (c) INAPPLICABILITY OF OTHER RESTRICTIONS.— 

24 This section applies notwithstanding section 102(h) of the 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 256 IH

1 Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) 

2 Act of 1996. 

3 SEC. 3. DURATION OF VISA. 

4 A visa described in section 2(a)(1)— 

5 (1) shall permit the alien to whom the visa is 

6 issued to remain in the United States only for the 

7 duration of the baseball season; and 

8 (2) need not be renewed for subsequent entries 

9 into the United States for the duration of a valid 

10 contract entered into between the alien and the pro11 fessional baseball team with which the alien played 

12 in the preceding baseball season. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
NO. 07-11-00327-CV 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

AT AMARILLO 

PANEL E 

AUGUST 31, 2011 

IN RE JUSTINO FRUTIS, RELATOR 

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. and BOYD, S.J.1

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Appearing pro se, relator Justino Frutis, a prison inmate, has filed a petition for 

writ of mandamus. Finding we lack jurisdiction, we will dismiss the petition. 

In his petition, relator asserts the 137th District Court of Lubbock County lacked 

subject-matter jurisdiction to convict him on April 5, 2011, of aggravated assault-serious 

bodily injury allegedly occurring on September 7, 1999, because the prosecution was 

barred by limitations. In the prayer of his petition, relator asks that we find the trial court 

lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, order his conviction “dismissed,” and notify prison 

officials so that his time record may be reformed.2

 We will dismiss relator’s petition for 

want of jurisdiction. 

 1

 John T. Boyd, Chief Justice (Ret.), Seventh Court of Appeals, sitting by 

assignment. 

2

 Relator’s petition recites that the sentence he received from his April 2011 

conviction runs concurrent with a 25-year sentence on another offense. 
2 

Relator has not filed a proper record or appendix with his petition. In an original 

mandamus proceeding, the petition must be accompanied by a certified or sworn copy 

of every document that is material to a relator’s claim for relief and that was filed in any 

underlying proceeding. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a)(1). The only supporting document 

relator filed is an unsworn copy of the front page of a judgment. Additionally, relator’s 

petition states facts not supported by evidence included in an appendix or record. A 

relator’s burden on mandamus includes meeting the requirement that “[e]very statement 

of fact in the petition [is] supported by citation to competent evidence included in the 

appendix or record.” Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(g). In short, a relator must supply a record 

sufficient to establish the right to mandamus relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 

837 (Tex. 1992). 

 While relator’s failure to comply with Appellate Rule 52 would ordinarily require 

denial of his petition, we must dispose of this proceeding on a different ground. The 

substance of the relief relator seeks by mandamus is a request for post-conviction 

habeas corpus relief. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has exclusive jurisdiction 

over a post-conviction writ of habeas corpus challenging a final felony conviction. Tex. 

Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07 § 3 (West Supp. 2010). We accordingly dismiss 

relator’s petition for want of jurisdiction. 

Per Curiam
The Honorable Evan J. Wallach, of the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation. 

*

1

09-2289-cv

Terreri v. Astrue

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

Rulings by summary order do not have precedential effect. Citation to a summary order

filed on or after January 1, 2007, is permitted and is governed by Federal Rule of Appellate

Procedure 32.1 and this court’s Local Rule 32.1.1. When citing a summary orderin a document filed

with this court, a party must cite either the Federal Appendix or an electronic database (with the

notation “summary order”). A party citing a summary order must serve a copy of it on any party

not represented by counsel. 

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the

Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New York, on

the 3 day of March, two thousand ten.

rd

PRESENT:

JOSÉ A. CABRANES,

BARRINGTON D. PARKER,

Circuit Judges,

EVAN J. WALLACH,

Judge.*

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

FRANK R. TERRERI,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 -v.- No. 09-2289-cv

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security

Defendant-Appellee. 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE: VERNON NORWOOD, Special Assistant United States

Attorney (Kathleen M. Mehltretter, United States

Attorney for the Western District of New York, Stephen

P. Conte, Acting Chief Counsel - Region II, Office of

General Counsel, Social Security Administration, on the

brief) New York, NY.
2

COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT: KENNETH HILLER, Law Office of Kenneth Hiller, 

Amherst, NY.

Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of New

York (John T. Curtain, Judge).

UPON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED,

AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.

Plaintiff Frank R. Terreri appeals from the March 27, 2009 judgment of the District Court

denying plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, granting defendant’s motion for judgment on

the pleadings, and affirming the decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

(the “Commissioner”) denying plaintiff’s application for disability benefits. On appeal plaintiff argues

that the District Court erred in affirming the decision of the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) because

the ALJ failed to consider or explain his reasons for discrediting the opinion of Terreri’s treating

physician, in violation of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts

and procedural history of the case.

We have reviewed each of plaintiff’s claim and find it to be without merit. Substantially for the

reasons stated by the District Court in its careful and thoughtful decision dated March 10, 2009, see

Terreri v.Astrue, 07-CV-00277 (W.D.N.Y. March 18, 2009), the March 27, 2009 judgment of the District

Court is AFFIRMED. 

FOR THE COURT, 

Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
Exhibit 32.1

        Certification under Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

         Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Henry E.
Gemino, as Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, of Profile
Technologies, Inc., hereby certify that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
the quarter ended September 30, 2008 (the "Quarterly Report") fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Quarterly Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of Profile Technologies, Inc.


Date:  November 6, 2008                             /s/ Henry E. Gemino
                                                    ---------------------------
                                                    Henry E. Gemino
                                                    Chief Executive Officer and
                                                    Chief Financial Officer
#### Calvin Jermaine VINES, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene JOHNSON, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 07-7321.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 19, 2007.

Decided: Jan. 11, 2008.

*572Calvin Jermaine Vines, Appellant Pro Se. Joshua Mikell Didlake, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Calvin Jermaine Vines seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. ■ See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional 'Claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Vines has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NICHOLAS B. GARCIA,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

ROBERT K. WONG, Acting Warden of

California State Prison - Solano,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 09-15221

D.C. No. 2:07-cv-00621-ALA

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Arthur L. Alarcón, Senior Circuit Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 16, 2010** 

Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Nicholas B. Garcia appeals from the district court’s

judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition as untimely. We have

FILED

NOV 22 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 After this court’s decision in Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546 (9th Cir. 1

2010) (en banc), Garcia moved the court for issuance of a certificate of

appealability on the issue of whether the district court properly dismissed his

habeas petition as untimely. We grant Garcia’s motion and certify this issue for

appeal. We also certify for appeal the issue of whether the district court abused its

discretion by declining to hold an evidentiary hearing regarding Garcia’s

entitlement to equitable tolling.

2 09-15221

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm. 

1

Garcia contends that he is entitled to equitable or statutory tolling because

prison officials withheld his legal documents from him. Even assuming this

alleged deprivation was an “extraordinary circumstance,” Garcia is not entitled to

equitable tolling because he failed to demonstrate that this circumstance caused the

untimely filing of his petition. See Bryant v. Schriro, 499 F.3d 1056, 1061 (9th

Cir. 2007). Lack of causation also defeats his entitlement to statutory tolling. Id.

at 1060. 

Because the facts alleged by Garcia do not warrant equitable tolling, the

district court also did not abuse its discretion in denying Garcia an evidentiary

hearing. See Tapia v. Roe, 189 F.3d 1052, 1058 (9th Cir. 1999).

Garcia’s motion for change of venue upon remand is denied as moot.

AFFIRMED.
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 9 A0 19 5 . HENDERSON v

. THE STATE.

Th i s cas e was d o ck et ed b y t h i s Co u rt o n A u g u s t 1 3 , 20 1 8 , an d ap p el l an t ’ s b ri ef

an d en u m erat i o n s o f erro r were d u e Sep tem b er 5, 2 01 8

. As o f th e d at e o f t h i s o rd er, ap p el l an t h as no t fi l ed a b ri ef an d en um erat i o n of erro rs an d h a s n o t r e q u es t ed an

ex t en s i o n o f t i m e i n wh i ch t o d o s o

. Acco rd i n g ly , t hi s ap p eal i s h ereb y DISM ISSED
p u rs u an t t o Co u rt o f Ap p eal s Ru l es 1 3 an d 2 3

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia C le r k ’ s O f f i c e , A t la n t a ,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e is a tr u e e x t r a c t f r o m
t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. September 06, 2018

09/06/2018
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-163104, 333-135614, 333-129267, 333-116365, 333-58162, and 333-92053 on Forms S-8 and Registration Statement No. 333-169012 on Form S-3 of our reports dated March 15, 2011, relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of Merit Medical Systems, Inc. and Subsidiaries (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph regarding the adoption of new accounting guidance) and the effectiveness of Merit Medical Systems, Inc. and Subsidiaries’ internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Merit Medical Systems, Inc. and Subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2010.

 
| /s/   DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP |   |
|--------------------------------------|--------|
| Salt   Lake City, Utah               |   |
|                                 |   |
| March 15,   2011                |   |

 

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 19
- 0 421 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,
v. HOANG VI NH PHAM ,

Defendant and Appellant.

**O RDER**  Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including February 3 , 202 1 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 24 2020

12/24/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0421
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 Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
 Docket No.NextEra Energy Bluff Point, LLC
EG17-115-000Horse Hollow Wind IV, LLC
EG17-116-000Horse Hollow Wind II, LLC
EG17-117-000CA Flats Solar 130, LLC
EG17-118-000Buckthorn Wind, LLC
EG17-119-000Bearkat Wind Energy I, LLC
EG17-120-000Cottonwood Wind Project, LLC
EG17-121-000Jacinta Solar Farm S.R.L
FC17-2-000Nicefield S.A
FC17-3-000
 Take notice that during the month of August 2017, the status of the above-captioned entities as Exempt Wholesale Generators or Foreign Utility Companies became effective by operation of the Commission's regulations. 18 CFR 366.7(a) (2017). Dated: September 13, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.


[FR Doc. 2017-19872 Filed 9-18-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6606

ROBERT LEE DAVIS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

HUBERT STONE, Sheriff,

Respondent - Appellee.

No. 97-6973

ROBERT LEE DAVIS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

HUBERT STONE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Chief District

Judge. (CA-97-155-5-F, CA-97-278-5-HC-F3)
2

Submitted: September 11, 1997 Decided: September 22, 1997

Before RUSSELL, MURNAGHAN, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Lee Davis, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying

relief on his petitions filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994

& Supp. 1997) and motion to recuse. We have reviewed the record and

the district court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeals on the reasoning of the district court. Davis v. Stone,

No. CA-97-155-5-F (E.D.N.C. Mar. 24, 1997); Davis v. Stone,

No. CA-97-278-5-HC-F3 (E.D.N.C. June 24, 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
#### AMERICAN ALLOYS, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant.

No. 91-10-00782.

United States Court of International Trade.

June 23, 1993.

JUDGMENT

CARMAN, Judge.

This case having been duly submitted for decision and this Court, after due deliberation, having rendered a decision herein, which reversed in part the Department of Commerce’s *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Metal From Argentina*and remanded the action to Commerce for recalculation of the United States Price adjustment under 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(d)(l)(C); and Commerce having reported the results of its remand determination to this Court in accordance with the prior Order of this Court entered January 11, 1993, which remand determination is unopposed by plaintiffs, 810 F.Supp. 1294; now, in conformity with said decision and remand determination, it is

ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the Department of Commerce’s *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Metal From Argentina,*as amended by its *Redetermination on Remand: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Metal From Argentina,*is hereby affirmed.
EXHIBIT 23.1
                    [Letterhead of Rotenberg & Company, LLP]


                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT



To the Board of Directors
  and Stockholders
HQ Sustainable Maritime Industries, Inc.
  And Subsidiaries
New York, NY


         We consent to the use in this Annual Report of HQ Sustainable  Maritime
Industries,  Inc. and  Subsidiaries on Form 10-KSB of our report dated March 23,
2006, for the consolidated balance sheets of HQ Sustainable Maritime Industries,
Inc.  and  Subsidiaries  as of  December  31,  2005 and  2004,  and the  related
consolidated  statements of income,  changes in shareholders'  equity,  and cash
flows for the years then ended.

/s/ Rotenberg & Co., LLP

Rotenberg & Co., LLP
Certified Public Accountants

Rochester, New York
March 23, 2006