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

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           2,255
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               1
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 3,315
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     16,531
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                             500
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                               505
<LOANS>                                         66,713
<ALLOWANCE>                                        835
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  92,755
<DEPOSITS>                                      83,777
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                554
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           800
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,624
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                   8,424
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  1,493
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  180
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    67
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 1,740
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                 924
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 924
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                              816
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       19
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                    652
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    208
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         208
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       144
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .18
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.09
<LOANS-NON>                                         25
<LOANS-PAST>                                       913
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   826
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       43
<RECOVERIES>                                         2
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  835
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            835
        

</TABLE>
## FLORIDA SUPREME COURT

NOTICE OF CORRECTION

DATE: February 17, 2022

CASE OF: STEPHEN TODD BOOKER V. STATE OF FLORIDA

DOCKET NO.: SC 21

- 763

OPINION FILED: February 3

, 202 2

ATTENTION: ALL PUBLISHERS

THE FOLLOWING CORRECTION HAS BEEN MADE IN THE

ABOVE OPINION:

On page 7

, line 13, “ Fla. R. App. P. 3.851(f)(5)(B)” was changed to

“Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851(f)(5)(B) .”

SIGNED: OPINION CLERK
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AS OF AND FOR
THE THIRTY-NINE WEEK PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 28, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-28-1997
<CASH>                                          53,264
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  237,603
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (20,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    342,430
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,348,506
<PP&E>                                      14,963,354
<DEPRECIATION>                             (4,325,092)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              14,694,247
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,558,929
<BONDS>                                         57,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        46,675
<OTHER-SE>                                  11,372,714
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,419,389
<SALES>                                     13,758,705
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            14,108,480
<CGS>                                        4,463,507
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               17,369,478
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               162,411
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (102,369)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,158,629)
<INCOME-TAX>                               (1,032,226)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,126,403)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                    (129,041)
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,255,444)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.48)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.48)
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Miguel MACIAS MEDINA, also known as Julio Medina, also known as Juan Miguel Macias Medina, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-40527

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 19, 2011.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Sarah Beth Landau, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Miguel Macias Medina has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2011). Macias Medina has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3119 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3119

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 23, 2009

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 867 Stockton Street in San Francisco, California, as the ``Lim Poon 
                           Lee Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. LIM POON LEE POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 867 Stockton Street in San Francisco, California, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Lim Poon Lee Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Lim Poon 
Lee Post Office''.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 22, 2009.

            Attest:

                                            LORRAINE C. MILLER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 1512

In re: FREDERICK J. ANDREWS , Petitioner

.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus . ( 3:17

- cv
- 00533

- REP )

Submitted : June 21, 2018 Decided: June 25, 2018

Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.

Frederick J. Andrews , Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Frederick J . Andrews petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on the civil action that he initiated in August 2017 . He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. Our review of the district cour t’s
docket reveals that the court recently granted defendants’ motions to dismiss, dismissed the parties that Andrews failed to serve, and dismissed without prejudice his amended complaint

. Accordingly, because the district court has recently decided Andr ews ’ case, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. 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.
PETITION DENIED
**Exhibit 10.60**July 18, 2005Ivan TaboraDear Ivan,**RE: Employee Share Incentive Plan and Employee Share Option Plan**In accordance with the Employee Share Incentive Plan (“the Preference Share Plan”), you are herebyadvised that the Grant Date is July 14, 2005 for benefits you have accrued during the year ended 31December 2004.Accordingly you are granted 62 Preference Shares in the Company. You have the option to purchasean equal number of Preference Shares at a price of US$18.31 or CI$15.26 each, which has beencalculated in accordance to the terms of the Preference Share Plan. If you intend to exercise thisoption, then payment must be received in full no later than the close of business on **August 15,2005**.As a member of the Employee Share Option Plan (“the Option Plan”), you will also be granted, as ofJuly 14, 2005, the option to purchase 310 Ordinary Shares in the Company. These options areexercisable in accordance to the terms of the Option Plan. You furthermore have the opportunity toobtain an equal amount of options to purchase Ordinary Shares of the Company, in accordance to theterms of the Option Plan, if you exercise your right to purchase the above additional PreferenceShares before **August 15, 2005**.Your continued dedication and hard work have contributed to another successful year forConsolidated Water, and I look forward to a very bright future.Yours sincerely,
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





The
undersigned, Daniel Hollis, Chief Executive and Financial Officer of Dutch Gold
Resources, Inc., hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:





(1)
            the
      annual report on Form 10-KSB of Dutch Gold Resources, Inc.. for the period
      ended December 31, 2007 (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 Dutch Gold
      Resources, Inc.





Dated:
February 9, 2010





DUTCH
      GOLD RESOURCES, INC.By:
            /s/Daniel
      W. HollisDaniel
      W. Hollis, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer (principal
      executive and accounting officer)





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906, has been provided to Dutch Gold Resources, Inc. and will be
retained by Dutch Gold Resources, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit
10.2


 





		 	 
	David
        Rose

        Partner

         

        david.rose@dentons.com

        D   +44
        1224 356 152

        M   +44
        777 624 6476
	Dentons
                                  UKMEA LLP

        The
        Capitol

        431
        Union Street

        Aberdeen

        AB11
        6DA

        DX
        AB17

         

        dentons.com








 





	

        Turcan
        Connell

        Solicitors

        Princes
        Exchange

        1
        Early Grey Street

        Edinburgh

        EH3
        9EE



 


Our
ref: DAR/DMC/113954.00001


Your
ref: NS/F.2898.030


 


27
April 2018


 


Dear
Sirs


 


First
Capital Real Estate Operating Partnership LLP and Others


M
B Forbes and Others


The
Angus, Kingennie, by Dundee


 


On
behalf of First Capital Real Estate Operating Partnership L.P., a Delaware limited partnership (32-0357887) 410 Park Avenue
14th Floor, New York, NY 10022 and First Capital Real Estate Trust Incorporated, a Maryland real estate investment trust
(45-3770595) 410 Park Avenue 14th Floor, New York, NY 10022 (together referred to as the “FC Parties”) we accept
your offer dated 27 April 2018 on behalf of the Contributor as defined in the draft Contribution Agreement annexed to your said
offer (the “Contributor”) and we now hold the contract for the Contributor and the FC Parties to enter into the
Contribution Agreement relating to the contribution of land at Shank of Omachie by Kingennie, Angus for development, constituted
by your offer dated 27 April 2018 and this letter, to be concluded.


 


	Yours faithfully	 
	/s/ David Rose	Witness /s/ Brian Glen
	 	 
	 	Name: Brian Glen
	 	The Capitol
	 	431 Union Street
		Aberdeen
	This formal letter is signed for
    and on behalf of Dentons UKMEA LLP by the following member, David Rose.	AB11 6DA







 


Maclay
Murray & Spens ► Gallo Barrios Pickmann ► Muñoz ► Cardenas & Cardenas ► Lopez Velarde ►
Rodyk ► Boekel ► OPF Partners ► 

► McKenna Long


 


Dentons
is a global legal practice providing client services worldwide through its member firms and affiliates. Dentons UKMEA LLP is a
limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales under no. OC322045. It is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors
Regulation Authority and the Law Society of Scotland. A list of its members is open for inspection at its registered office: One
Fleet Place, London EC4M 7WS. Any reference to a “partner” means a person who is a partner, member, consultant or employee
with equivalent standing and qualifications in one of Dentons’ affiliates. Please see dentons.com for Legal Notices.


57025292.01
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Annual Report on Form 10-K of NitroMed, Inc. (the “Company”)for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned,Kenneth M. Bate, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1)                                  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)                                  Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Date:  March 8, 2007 | /s/ Kenneth M. Bate                   |
|---------------------------|---------------------------------------|
|                      | Kenneth M. Bate                       |
|                      | Chief Executive Officer and President |

 

 

----
WILLIAM HENRY CAIN,

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. 1D15-1377

_____________________________/

Opinion filed March 8, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Mark J. Borello, Judge.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Glenna Joyce Reeves, Assistant Public 

Defender, Tallahassee for Appellant; William Henry Cain, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm Appellant’s judgment and sentence for sale or delivery of 

cocaine, but based on the state’s proper concession of error in response to our 
2

Harrison order,

1 we reverse the imposition of the $100 cost for the FDLE 

Operating Trust Fund pursuant to section 938.055, Florida Statutes, and the $100 

sheriff’s investigative cost pursuant to section 938.27. The trial court did not 

orally pronounce these costs at the sentencing hearing. See Nix v. State, 84 So. 3d 

424, 426 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). 

On remand, the trial court may reimpose the FDLE Operating Trust Fund 

cost after following the proper procedure. Id. However, the sheriff’s investigatory 

cost may not be reimposed on remand because the record does not show that the 

state requested this cost. See Mills v. State, 177 So. 3d 984 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015); 

Bratton v. State, 156 So. 3d 590 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015); Cook v. State, 149 So. 3d 

118 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014).

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part and REMANDED with directions.

WETHERELL, MAKAR, and WINOKUR JJ., CONCUR.

 

1

 Harrison v. State, 146 So. 3d 76 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (establishing a procedure 

pursuant to which the state is given an opportunity to respond to preserved 

sentencing error claims raised in an Anders brief).
#### ESSEX INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mercedes ZOTA, Miguel Zota, Defendants-Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellees, Lighthouse Intracoastal, Inc., Jack Farji, an individual, Broward Executive Builders, Inc., Defendants-Appellees, R.A. Brandon & Co., Inc., Third-Party Defendant.

Nos. 05-13457, 05-14671.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

July 16, 2008.

Louise H. McMurray, Douglas M. McIntosh, Robert C. Weill, McIntosh, Sawran, Peltz & Cartaya, P.A., Ft. Lauderdale, FL, for Essex Ins. Co.

Harriett R. Galvin, Miami, FL, Matthew Douglas Weissing, Weissing Law Firm, Pompano Beach, FL, Michael David Kap-lan, Zebersky & Panye, LLP, Hollywood, FL, Scott Alan Mager, The Mager Law Group, P.A., Mara Shlackman, Law Offices of Mara Shlackman, P.L., Ft Lauderdale, FL, Kathleen M. Salyer, Miami, FL, for Appellees.

Leonard Michael Billmeier, Jr., Galloway, Brennan *&*Billmeier, P.A, Tallahassee, FL, John R. Catizone, Litchfield Cavo, LLP, Tampa, FL, for Amicus Curiae.

Before TJOFLAT and CARNES, Circuit Judges, and HODGES,* District Judge.

*

 Honorable William Terrell Hodges, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

Previously in this case we certified five unsettled questions of state law to the Florida Supreme Court. *Essex Ins. Co. v. Zota,*466 F.3d 981 (11th Cir.2006). That Court has responded with an opinion that thoroughly discusses and decides the primary state law question that we certified. *Essex Ins. Co. v. Zota,*985 So.2d 1036, 2008 WL 2520879 (Fla. June 26, 2008). As the Florida Supreme Court opinion explains, the answer it gave to the first certified question moots the second one, and it partially answers the fifth one. *Id.*at 1041, 2008 WL 2520879 at *3. The Court determined that the remaining issues we certified cannot be decided from the summary judgment record without additional findings which the district court has not yet made. *Id.*

We express our gratitude to the Florida Supreme Court and, as a result of its decision, vacate the judgment of the district court and remand for further proceedings consistent with that decision and with our previous opinion in this case. *See Zota,*466 F.3d at 990 n. 1.

VACATED AND REMANDED.
* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED October 22, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-40366 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus SILVESTRE FLORES-DAMIAN, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. B-02-CR-712-ALL

-------------------- Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Silvestre Flores-Damian 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. Flores-Damian complains that his sentence was improperly enhanced pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) based on a prior conviction. He argues that the sentencing provision is unconstitutional. Flores-Damian thus contends that his sentence should not exceedNo. 03-40366 -2- the maximum terms of imprisonment and supervised release prescribed in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).
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. Flores-Damian 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.