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

<ARTICLE>      5
<LEGEND>     THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
             FROM THE ACCOMPANYING FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED
             IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                                  <C>           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        9-MOS         9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                    DEC-31-1999   DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                       JAN-01-1999   JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                         SEP-30-1999   SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                    117,375       44,500
<SECURITIES>                                    0            0
<RECEIVABLES>                              22,772       12,619
<ALLOWANCES>                                    0            0
<INVENTORY>                                     0            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          393,708       62,802
<PP&E>                                     23,694       15,495
<DEPRECIATION>                                  0            0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            520,028       83,357
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     108,759       12,254
<BONDS>                                         0            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           0            0
<PREFERRED>                                     0            0
<COMMON>                                        7            7
<OTHER-SE>                                232,176       70,133
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              520,028       83,358
<SALES>                                    74,036       37,863
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           74,036       37,863
<CGS>                                      29,310       21,882
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              29,310       21,882
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           66,647       16,669
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                0            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              0            0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           100,556       (1,364)
<INCOME-TAX>                               40,222            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        60,334       (1,364)
<DISCONTINUED>                                  0            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 0            0
<CHANGES>                                       0            0
<NET-INCOME>                               60,334       (1,364)
<EPS-BASIC>                               $0.85       ($0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                               $0.76       ($0.02)



</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2800 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 2800

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 12, 2012

  Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To amend the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 to 
   reauthorize the Missing Alzheimer's Disease Patient Alert Program.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Missing Alzheimer's Disease Patient 
Alert Program Reauthorization Act of 2012''.

SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF THE MISSING ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE PATIENT 
              ALERT PROGRAM.

    Section 240001 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act 
of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14181) is amended--
            (1) by amending subsection (a) to read as follows:
    ``(a) Grant.--Subject to the availability of appropriations to 
carry out this section, the Attorney General, through the Bureau of 
Justice Assistance, shall award competitive grants to nonprofit 
organizations to assist such organizations in paying for the costs of 
planning, designing, establishing, and operating locally based, 
proactive programs to protect and locate missing patients with 
Alzheimer's disease and related dementias.'';
            (2) in subsection (b), by inserting ``competitive'' after 
        ``to receive a'';
            (3) by amending subsection (c) to read as follows:
    ``(c) Preference.--In awarding grants under subsection (a), the 
Attorney General shall give preference to national nonprofit 
organizations that have experience working with patients, and families 
of patients, with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias.''; and
            (4) by amending subsection (d) to read as follows:
    ``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be 
appropriated to carry out this section $1,000,000 for each of the 
fiscal years 2013 through 2017.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 11, 2012.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### In the Matter of Svetlana Sorokina, Appellant, v David A. Hansell, as Acting Commissioner of New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance, et al., Respondents.

Submitted March 17, 2008;

decided March 25, 2008

Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved.
SUBSIDIARIES
      OF ICONIX BRAND GROUP, INC




Bright
      Star Footwear LLC


a
      New
      Jersey limited liability company





Badgley
      Mischka Licensing LLC


a
      Delaware limited liability company





IP
      Holdings and Management Corporation


a
      Delaware corporation





IP
      Holdings, LLC


a
      Delaware limited liability company





IP
      Management, LLC


a
      Delaware limited liability company





Licensing
      Acquisition Corp.


a
      Delaware corporation





Michael
      Caruso & Co., Inc.


a
      California corporation





Naxford
      Trading S.A. (inactive)


a
      Uruguay
      corporation





Ponca,
      Ltd. (inactive)


a
      Hong
      Kong corporation





Showroom
      Holding Co., Inc.


a
      New
      York corporation





Unzipped
      Apparel LLC


a
      Delaware limited liability company





Yulong
      Company Limited (inactive)


a
      British
      Virgin Islands corporation





Mossimo
      Holdings LLC


a
      Delaware limited liability company





Mossimo,
      Inc.


a
      Delaware corporation





Mossimo
      Management LLC


a
      Delaware limited liability company





OP
      Holdings LLC


a
      Delaware limited liability company




OP
      Holdings and Management Corporation


a
      Delaware corporation





Studio
      IP
      Holdings LLC


a
      Delaware limited liability company





Studio
      Holdings and Management Corporation


a
      Delaware corporation
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4963

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus MICHAEL EARL LITTLE, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (CR-04-147) Submitted: August 11, 2006 Decided: September 1, 2006 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael A. Meetze, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant. Jonathan S. Gasser, Acting United States Attorney, Rose Mary Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Moreover, Little has conceded in his supplemental brief, and the plea hearing transcript confirms, that statements he made at the guilty plea hearing constituted admissions of facts such that no Sixth Amendment error occurred at sentencing. - 2 - PER CURIAM: Michael Earl Little pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to possession of a firearm by a previously convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000). The district court sentenced Little to seventy-two months’ imprisonment under the then-mandatory sentencing guidelines. The sentencing court also imposed an alternative sentence, pursuant to United States v. Hammoud , 378 F.3d 426 (4th Cir.) (order), opinion issued by381 F.3d 316 (4th Cir. 2004) (en banc), vacated , 543 U.S. 1097 (2005), on remand , 405 F.3d 1034 (4th Cir. 2005). Little appeals, contending his sentence violated United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005). The Sixth Amendment error in this case, if any, was harmless because the district court imposed an identical alternative sentence in accordance with Hammoud . See United States v. Shatley , 448 F.3d 264, 267 (4th Cir. 2006). * The district court’s alternative sentence was within the range recommended by the sentencing guidelines, and this court takes the district court at its word when it states it would impose the same sentence under the advisory guideline system. See id. at 267-68. Therefore, we presume the district court properly considered the- 3 - sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.A § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2005), as required by United States v. Hughes , 401 F.3d 540, 546-56 (4th Cir. 2005); United States v. Green , 436 F.3d 449 (4th Cir.) cert denied. , 126 S. Ct. 2309 (2006); and United States v. Moreland , 437 F.3d 424 (4th Cir. 2006). Shatley , 448 F.3d at 268. Furthermore, we conclude the sentence was reasonable. See Green , 436 F.3d at 457. 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
No. 07-15-00108-CR

Kathryn Pendleton

Appellant

v.

The State of Texas

Appellee §

§

§

§ From the 320th District Court

of Potter County

October 23, 2015

Opinion by Justice Hancock

J U D G M E N T

Pursuant to the opinion of the Court dated October 23, 2015

, it is ordered,

adjudged and decreed that the judgment of the trial court be affirmed.

Inasmuch as this is an appeal in forma pauperis

, no costs beyond those that

have been paid are adjudged.

It is further ordered that this decision be certified below for observance.

o O o
Exhibit 23.1


              CONSENT OF PETERSON & CO., LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the  incorporation by reference in the Registration  Statements on
Forms  S-2  (Nos.  333-108923,   333-105656,  333-37676,  333-63468,  333-73906,
333-84766),  Forms S-3 (Nos.  333-19695,  333-62761,  333-45759,  333-07861) and
Forms  S-8  (Nos.  333-105854,   033-61704,   033-61708,  033-63046,  333-24991,
333-26319,  333-60011) of our report dated March 8, 2004, except for the effects
of the  restatements  described  Note 1, as to which the date is March 25, 2005,
included in the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A of Protein Polymer  Technologies,
Inc.  for the year ended  December  31,  2003,  with  respect  to the  financial
statements, included in this Form 10-KSB/A.



                                                      /s/ Peterson & Co., LLP

                                                      PETERSON & CO., LLP

San Diego, California
March 30, 2005
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

166 CA 16-00842 PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CARNI, LINDLEY, DEJOSEPH, AND NEMOYER, JJ.

ACEA MOSEY, AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF LAURA CUMMINGS, DECEASED, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

COUNTY OF ERIE, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. (APPEAL NO. 3.)

CONNORS LLP, BUFFALO (JOHN T. LOSS OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.
MICHAEL A. SIRAGUSA, COUNTY ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (JEREMY C. TOTH OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Diane Y. Devlin, J.), entered May 3, 2016. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied that part of plaintiff’s motion to settle the record with respect to inclusion of a transcript of oral argument of the motions at issue in appeal No. 1.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order insofar as appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, and that part of plaintiff’s motion seeking inclusion of the transcript of oral argument in the record on appeal in appeal No. 1 is granted.

Same memorandum as in Mosey v County of Erie ([appeal No. 1] ___ AD3d ___ [Mar. 24, 2017]).

Entered: March 24, 2017 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
1

The Honorable Charles A. Shaw, United States District Judge

for the Eastern District of Missouri.

___________

No. 95-3050

___________

United States of America, *

 *

Appellee, *

 * Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

 * Eastern District of Missouri.

William T. Moore, *

 * [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: February 6, 1996

 Filed: February 9, 1996 ___________

Before McMILLIAN, WOLLMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. ___________

PER CURIAM.

William T. Moore appeals the year-and-a-day sentence imposed

by the district court1 following his guilty plea to possession of

stolen property, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 659. We affirm.

From 1987 until 1992, Moore stole items from air freight

shipments at Lambert-St. Louis International Airport. To

facilitate the thefts, Moore enlisted the aid of four other

individuals, who assisted him at various times throughout the

course of the criminal activity. Moore sold most of the stolen

items to two "fences." At sentencing, the district court assessed

a four-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a), after finding

that Moore was the leader or organizer of criminal activity that
-2-

involved five or more participants. On appeal, Moore argues the

district court erred because neither he nor the "fences" could be

considered "participants," and because the criminal activity never

involved five participants at one time.

Under section 3B1.1(a), a district court must increase a

defendant's offense level if he was an organizer or leader of a

criminal activity that involved five or more participants, or that

was otherwise extensive. "A `participant' is a person who is

criminally responsible for the commission of the offense, but need

not have been convicted." U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1, comment. (n.1). We

have previously held that a defendant "is counted as a participant

in the criminal activity." United States v. Kenyon, 7 F.3d 783,

785-86 (8th Cir. 1993) (citing United States v. Harry, 960 F.2d 51,

54 (8th Cir. 1992)). Even assuming "fences" are not counted for

purposes of section 3B1.1(a), the district court correctly

determined that the criminal activity involved five participants.

First, Moore's role in the offense is determined based on all his

relevant conduct and not solely on the act of conviction. See

U.S.S.G. Ch.3, Pt.B, intro. comment. Second, the record shows that

four other individuals helped Moore facilitate the theft of the

items, and that these individuals were also criminally responsible.

We reject Moore's assertion that the criminal activity must involve

five or more participants "at any one time." Accordingly, we

conclude the district court did not clearly err in assessing the

section 3B1.1(a) enhancement. See United States v. Smith, 62 F.3d

1073, 1079 (8th Cir. 1995) (standard of review), cert. denied, 1995

WL 761706 (U.S. Jan. 22, 1996) (No. 95-7191).

The judgment is affirmed.
-3-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2943 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.2943

                      One Hundred Twelfth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
            the fifth day of January, two thousand and eleven

                                 An Act

 
To extend the program of block grants to States for temporary assistance 
   for needy families and related programs through December 31, 2011.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
    This Act may be cited as the ``Short-Term TANF Extension Act''.
SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF THE TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY FAMILIES 
PROGRAM AND RELATED PROGRAMS THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2011.
    (a) In General.--Activities authorized by part A of title IV and 
section 1108(b) of the Social Security Act (other than under 
subsections (a)(3) and (b) of section 403 of such Act) shall continue 
through December 31, 2011, in the manner authorized for fiscal year 
2011, and out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not 
otherwise appropriated, there are hereby appropriated such sums as may 
be necessary for such purpose. Grants and payments may be made pursuant 
to this authority on a quarterly basis through the first quarter of 
fiscal year 2012 at the level provided for such activities for the 
corresponding quarter of fiscal year 2011.
    (b) Maintenance of Effort.--Section 409(a)(7) of the Social 
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 609(a)(7)) is amended--
        (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``or 2012'' and inserting 
    ``2012, or 2013''; and
        (2) in subparagraph (B)(ii), by striking ``2011'' and inserting 
    ``2012''.
SEC. 3. BUDGETARY EFFECTS.
    The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of complying 
with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, shall be determined by 
reference to the latest statement titled ``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO 
Legislation'' for this Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional 
Record by the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, provided that 
such statement has been submitted prior to the vote on passage.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2613 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2613

To repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 and amendments to that 
                                  Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 21, 2011

   Mr. Paul introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 and amendments to that 
                                  Act.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Citizens Protection Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF THE GUN-FREE SCHOOL ZONES ACT OF 1990 AND AMENDMENTS 
              TO THAT ACT.

    (a) In General.--Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is 
amended by striking subsection (q).
    (b) Related Amendments.--
            (1) Section 921(a) of such title is amended by striking 
        paragraphs (25) through (27) and redesignating paragraphs (28), 
        (29), and (32) through (35) as paragraphs (25) through (30), 
        respectively.
            (2) Section 924(a) of such title is amended--
                    (A) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ``(k), or 
                (q)'' and inserting ``or (k)''; and
                    (B) by striking paragraph (4) and redesignating 
                paragraphs (5) through (7) as paragraphs (4) through 
                (6), respectively.
            (3) The Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 (18 U.S.C. 921 
        note, 922 note; section 1702 of Public Law 101-647; 104 Stat. 
        4844-4845) is repealed.
                                 <all>
```
# Supreme Court of Florida

____________ No. SC17

- 809

____________ WILLIAM GREGORY THOMAS,

Appellant,

vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. [ January 24, 2018 ]

PER CURIAM. We have for review William Gregory Thomas’s appeal of the circuit court’s order denying Thomas’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. Thomas’s motion sought r elief pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Hurst v. Florida , 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016), and our decision on
remand in Hurst v. State ( Hurst ), 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied , 137 S. Ct. 2161 (2017). This Court stayed Thomas’s appe al pending the disposition of
Hitchcock v. State , 226 So. 3d 216 (Fla. 2017), cert. denied , 138 S. Ct. 513 (2017)

.- 2

-

After this Court decided Hitchcock , Thomas responded to this Court’s order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case. After reviewing Thomas’s response to the order to show cause, as well as the State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Thomas is not entitled to relief. Thomas was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by a
vote of e leven to one. Thomas v. State , 693 So. 2d 951 , 951 (Fla. 1997). Thomas’s sentence of death became final in 1997. Thomas v. Florida , 522 U.S. 985 (1997). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Thomas’s sentence of
death. See Hitchcock , 226 So. 3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Thomas’s motion. The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Thomas , we caution that any rehearing motion containing reargument will be stricken. It is so
ordered. LABARGA, C.J., and QUINCE, POLSTON, and LAWSON, JJ., concur. PARIENTE, J., concurs in result with an opinion. LEWIS and CANADY, JJ., concur in result. PARIENTE, J., concurring in result. I concur in result because I recognize that this Court’s opinion in Hitchcock
v. State , 226 So. 3d 216 (Fla. 2017), cert. denied , 2017 WL 4355572 (U.S. Dec. 4, 2017), is now final. However, I continue to adhere to the views expressed in my dissenting opinion in Hitchcock

.- 3

-

An Appeal from the Circuit Court in and for Duval County, Russell L. Healey , Judge

- Case No. 161993CF005394AXXXMA Bjorn Brunvand and J. Jervis Wise, Brunvand Wise, P.A., Clearwater, Florida, for Appellant Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Jennifer Ann Donahue, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida,
for Appellee