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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           1,929
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   41,334
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (2,345)
<INVENTORY>                                     64,916
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               108,595
<PP&E>                                          35,397
<DEPRECIATION>                                  17,196
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 142,469
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           55,788
<BONDS>                                         49,531
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      13,687
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   142,469
<SALES>                                        133,988
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               133,988
<CGS>                                           87,217
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   31,702
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,650
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,615
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,804
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,952
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,852
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,995
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
591 F.2d 752

#### GINSBURG, FELDMAN & BRESS, Appellant, v. FEDERAL ENERGY ADMINISTRATION.

No. 76-1759.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued En Banc April 6, 1978.

Decided Oct. 31, 1978.

James Hamilton, Washington, D.C., with whom David Ginsburg and Fred W. Drogula, Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for appellant.

*144Michael Kimmel, Atty., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D.C., with whom Earl J. Silbert, U. S. Atty., Rex E. Lee, Asst. Atty. Gen., Barbara Allen Babcock, Asst. Atty. Gen., Leonard Schaitman and John K. Villa, Attys., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for appellee.

Before WRIGHT, Chief Judge, and BAZELON, McGOWAN, TAMM, ROBINSON, MacKINNON, ROBB and WILKEY, Circuit Judges.

JUDGMENT

This cause came on to be heard by the court on the record on appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and briefs were filed herein by the parties and the cause was argued by counsel before the court sitting en banc.

PER CURIAM:

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed by an equally divided court.

LEVENTHAL, Circuit Judge, took no part in the decision of this case.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Cecilia Cadorniga-Doeing, Appellant, v NSH/Long Island Jewish Health System et al., Respondents. Workers’ Compensation Board, Respondent.

Submitted December 31, 2007;

decided February 12, 2008

Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal denied *[see*9 NY3d 813 (2007)].
d7310796c.htm



EXHIBIT 10.1






 


AMENDMENT TO THE MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT


 


This AMENDMENT dated as of the 1st day of January, 2012, to the MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT made as of the 1st day of March, 2001, among CERES MANAGED FUTURES LLC (formerly SMITH BARNEY FUTURES MANAGEMENT LLC), a Delaware limited liability company (“CMF”), DIVERSIFIED MULTI-ADVISOR FUTURES FUND L.P. (formerly SMITH BARNEY DIVERSIFIED FUTURES FUND L.P.), a New York limited partnership (the “Partnership”) and WINTON CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LIMITED, a United Kingdom company (the “Advisor”).


 


W I T N E S S E T H:


 


WHEREAS, CMF, the Partnership and the Advisor wish to amend the Management Agreement dated as of March 1, 2001, to increase the amount of leverage used to manage the Partnership’s assets.


 


NOW, therefore, the parties agree as follows:


 


1. The first sentence of Paragraph 1(c) shall be deleted and replaced by the following:


 


The allocation of the Partnership’s assets to the Advisor will be made to the Advisor’s Diversified Program (the “Program”) as described in the Disclosure Document, provided that CMF and the Partnership agree that the amount of leverage applied to the assets of the Partnership allocated to the Advisor by CMF shall be up to (but not in excess of) 1.5 times the assets of the Partnership allocated to the Advisor by CMF (the “Trading Level”), unless otherwise agreed by the parties hereto in writing.  The Advisor shall trade the Partnership’s assets on the basis of the Trading Level.


 


2. In all other respects the Management Agreement remains unchanged and of full force and effect.


 


THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK


 


 




  





  











  






 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been executed for and on behalf of the undersigned as of the day and year first above written.


 


CERES MANAGED FUTURES LLC












By  /s/  Walter Davis                                             


Walter Davis


President







DIVERSIFIED MULTI-ADVISOR FUTURES FUND L.P.







By:  Ceres Managed Futures LLC


(General Partner)












By  /s/  Walter Davis                                           


Walter Davis


President












WINTON CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LIMITED












By  /s/  Rajeev Patel                                            


Rajeev Patel


Director, Winton Capital Management Limited


 


 



-2-
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
   PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

     The undersigned Chief Executive Officer of First Keystone Financial, Inc.
(the "Registrant") hereby certifies that the Registrant's Annual Report on Form
10-K for the year ended September 30, 2006 fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
contained therein fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Registrant.


                                    /s/ Thomas M. Kelly
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Name: Thomas M. Kelly
                                    Title: President and Chief Executive Officer

Date: December 28, 2007

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act has been provided to First Keystone Financial, Inc. and will
be retained by First Keystone Financial, Inc. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
GREGORY LONDON

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 14

- 4559

_________ ____________________/

Opinion filed January 14, 2015.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Alachua County

. Mark W. Moseley , Judge

.

Gregory London, pro se

, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Virginia Harris, Assistant Attorney

General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

PADOVANO, CLARK, and MARSTILLER, JJ., CONCUR.
WILLIAM KIRK ANDERSON,

 Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

 Appellee.

_______________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED.

CASE NO. 1D16-4656

 1D16-4657

Opinion filed March 10, 2017.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Suwannee County.

Paul S. Bryan, Judge.

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public Defender, 

Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Jennifer J. Moore and Jason W. Rodriguez, 

Assistant Attorneys General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We sua sponte consolidate these appeals for disposition. Appellant seeks 

review of orders revoking his probation and sentencing him to prison. He argues 
2

in each case and the state properly concedes that by failing to conduct an 

appropriate plea colloquy before revoking appellant’s probation and sentencing 

him, the trial court reversibly erred and violated the requirements of Florida Rule 

of Criminal Procedure 3.172(c). See Haug v. State, 151 So. 3d 560 (Fla. 1st DCA 

2014). Accordingly, we REVERSE the orders revoking probation and the 

judgments and sentences entered thereon, and REMAND for further proceedings.

WOLF, LEWIS, and WETHERELL, JJ., CONCUR.
EX-31 Rule13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications.

 

 

I, HelaineM. Kaplan, certify that:

 

1. I havereviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this reporton Form 10-K of the COMM 2013-CCRE9 Mortgage Trust (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");

 

2. Basedon my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3. Basedon my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the periodcovered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4. Basedon my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except asdisclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreementsin all material respects; and

 

5. All ofthe reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reportson assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordancewith Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, exceptas otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed inthis report on Form 10-K.

 

In givingthe certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:

 

KeyBankNational Association (as successor to KeyCorp Real Estate Capital Markets, Inc.), as Master Servicer, Midland Loan Services, aDivision of PNC Bank, National Association, as Special Servicer, U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee, and Park Bridge LenderServices LLC, as Operating Advisor.

 

 

 

Dated:March 16, 2018

 

 

/s/Helaine M. Kaplan

 

 

President

(seniorofficer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
#### TALMAGE et al. v. UNITED STATES.

(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.

December 8, 1896.)

No. 2,354.

Customs Duttes — Classification—Rice.

The specific descriptions in paragraph 193 of the tariff act of 1894 are intended to define all kinds of imported rice, and accordingly rice from which not only the outer hull, but also the inner cuticle, has been removed, though commercially known, prior to the act, as “uncleaned rice,” is not entitled to be classified as such, but is dutiable as cleaned rice.

This was.an appeal by Dan Talmage’s Sons from a decision of the board of .general appraisers sustaining the classification by the collector of the port of New York of certain rice imported by the appellants. The rice was described in the invoice as “Patna rice (not cleaned),” but was classified by the collector as cleaned rice, and duty was assessed thereon at 1-J cents per pound, under paragraph 198 of the tariff act of 1894, pursuant to the report of the assistant appraiser that the merchandise in question was rice with the outer and inner cuticle removed, and contained particles of rice flour or meal. The importers’ protest claimed that the rice was dutiable only at 8/10 of 1 cent per pound under paragraph 193, or at the same rate under section 4 of the same act, or at no more than 20 per cent, ad valorem, as a nonenumerated partly manufactured article, under section 3 of the act. It appeared by evidence taken before the board of general appraisers that the rice in question was known commercially, prior to August 28, 1894, as uncleaned rice, but also that the inner or yellow cuticle had been removed from it.

W. Wickham Smith, for plaintiffs.

Henry O. Platt, Asst. U. S. Atty.

WHEELER, District Judge.

The act of 1894, by paragraph 193, divides rice into three classes for duty, viz.:

> “Rice cleaned, one and one-half cents per pound; uncleaned rice, or rice free of the outer hull, and still having the inner cuticle on, eight-tenths of one cent per pound; * * * paddy, or rice hating the outer hull on, three-fourths of one cent per pound.”

These specific descriptions are new; and, in view of prior legislation and litigation, seem intended to extend to and define all kinds of imported rice. Under them what is not paddy is uncleaned rice, and what is not uncleaned rice is cleaned rice. This importation is of Bengal rice, and is not only free of the outer hull, but has not still the inner cuticle on. It is not paddy, nor uncleaned rice, according to these statutory descriptions, but has become cleaned rice. Decisions and trade distinctions upon former statutes are themselves controlled by this new statutory division, and cannot be controlling over this subject with their former force. Decision of general appraisers affirmed.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1


                           ENSEC INTERNATIONAL, INC.
             STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

<TABLE> 
<CAPTION> 
                                       Nine Months Ended           Three Months Ended
                                         September 30                 September 30
                                   ---------------------------  --------------------------
                                      1995           1996          1995           1996
                                      ----           ----          ----           ----
<S>                                <C>            <C>           <C>           <C>
Loss from continuing
  operations                       $(4,520,529)   $(4,142,048)  $(1,957,672)  $ (2,047,466)
Income from discontinued
  operations                           390,000              -        47,841              -

Loss applicable to
  common stock                     $(4,130,529)   $(4,142,048)  $(1,909,831)  $ (2,047,466)
                                   ===========    ============  ===========   ============
Weighted average shares
  outstanding                        3,500,000      3,507,778     3,500,000      3,523,166

Common stock
 equivalents(1)                        404,896        177,500       404,896        177,500 
                                   -----------    ------------  -----------   ------------
Total weighted average common
  stock and common stock
  equivalents outstanding            3,904,896      3,685,278     3,904,896      3,700,666
                                   ===========    ============  ===========   ============
Earnings (loss) per common
  share:

Continuing operations              $     (1.16)   $     (1.12)  $      (.50)  $       (.55)
Discontinued operations                    .10              -           .01              - 
                                   -----------    ------------  -----------   ------------
Loss per common share              $     (1.06)   $      (1.12) $      (.49)  $       (.55)
                                   ===========    ============  ===========   ============

</TABLE>

(1) In accordance with SAB Topic 4(D), the weighted average common stock 
    equivalents include options and warrants issued within one year of the 
    Offering with exercise prices below the Price to Public for all periods
    presented as calculated under the treasury stock method.
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-QSB for
the quarter ended September 30, 2006 (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:  February 8, 2007                             /s/ Henry E. Gemino
                                                    ----------------------------
                                                    Henry E. Gemino
                                                    Chief Executive Officer and
                                                    Chief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-2292

THOMAS RAYMOND FIRRIOLO,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

BRAD RICE, City Code Official, Greenville, South Carolina; ROBERT PATRICK 

COLOR; KENNETH MILLER, Chief of Police, Greenville Law Enforcement 

Department, State of South Carolina; MICHAEL PITTS, City Attorney, Greenville, 

South Carolina; OFFICER JOHNATHAN BRAGG, Public Information Official, 

Greenville Law Enforcement Department; OFFICER ANDREW HANSEN, 

Greenville Law Enforcement Department, State of S.C.; CHRISTOPHER PUSTIZ, 

Police Officer, Greenville Law Enforcement; JOHN CASTIL, South Carolina 

Government Official, also known as John Castile; TRANE, Corporate Service 

Company; MATHEW PRITCHARD, Territory Manager; DAVID CROTTS, Field 

Representative,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Greenville. Donald C. Coggins, Jr., District Judge. (6:18-cv-00096-DCC)

Submitted: August 7, 2020 Decided: September 1, 2020

Before KING and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

Thomas Raymond Firriolo, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Thomas Raymond Firriolo appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate 

judge’s recommendation and dismissing Firriolo’s civil action without prejudice for lack 

of subject matter jurisdiction.∗

 On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the 

informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Firriolo’s informal brief does not challenge 

the basis for the district court’s disposition of his claims, he has forfeited appellate review 

of the court’s orders. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The 

informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited 

to issues preserved in that brief.”) Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment

and deny all of Firriolo’s pending motions. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

∗ Although the district court dismissed the complaint without prejudice, we have 

jurisdiction over this appeal. See Bing v. Brivo Sys., LLC, 959 F.3d 605, 615 (4th Cir. 

2020).
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Woodrow Flemming, Appellant, v R. Woods, as Superintendent of Upstate Correctional Facility, Respondent.

Submitted February 11, 2008;

decided March 20, 2008

On the Court’s own motion, appeal dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that the order appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution. Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-50924 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ROBERTO AVILA-RAMIREZ, also known as Jesus Hernandez-Martinez, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-02-CR-771-ALL-DB

-------------------- February 20, 2003 Before WIENER, EMILIO M. GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Roberto Avila-Ramirez appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Avila-Ramirez contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the prior conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have been alleged in his indictment. Avila-Ramirez maintains that heNo. 02-50924 -2- pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds the two-year maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for that offense.
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. Avila-Ramirez acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres

. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.