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



<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
UNAUDITED  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  FOR THE THREE MONTH PERIOD ENDED  DECEMBER 31,
2000,  AND  IS  QUALIFIED  IN  ITS  ENTIRETY  BY  REFERENCE  TO  SUCH  FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.

</LEGEND>


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2001
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,750
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     (2,750)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,020
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,020)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,020)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,020)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0




</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Valeressa Jackson, Appellant.

[861 NYS2d 621]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered January 3, 2006, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the second degree, and sentencing her, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of six years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s credibility determinations concerning the resolution of conflicting testimony. The victim’s prior inconsistent statements concerning the cause of her injuries were fully explained by her fear of defendant.

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s mistrial motion, made after a witness inadvertently referred to defendant’s previous incarceration, since the reference was brief and the court issued prompt curative instructions to the jury to disregard the remark *(see e.g. People v Greene,*250 AD2d 547 [1998], *lv denied*92 NY2d 925 [1998]). The jury is presumed to have followed those instructions *(see People v Davis,*58 NY2d 1102, 1104 [1983]). Concur—Lippman, P.J., Tom, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.
1

Filed 9/14/16 Ba llena Bay Townhouse Assoc. v. Kramer CA1/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

BALLENA BAY TOWNHOUSE

ASSOCIATION NO.1,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

AUDREY KRAMER et al.

Defendants and Appellants. A147087

(Alameda County

Super. Ct. No. RG12655656)

Appellants Audrey and Leo Kramer appeal from a default judgment against them

on the ground that the judgment was entered in violation of orders entered in federal

bankr uptcy proceedings. 1 Respondent Ballena Bay Townhouse Association No. 1 has

advised this court “that it does not object to the relief sought in Appellant’s Opening

Brief.” Therefore, the default judgment dated December 14, 2015 is reversed and the

matter is remanded to the superior c ourt for such further proceedings as may be

appropriate under the circumstances. 2

The parties shall bear their respective costs on appeal.

1 Appellants’ unopposed motion to augment the records to include federal bankruptcy

case documents and for judicial n otice is granted.

2 Appellants’ prayer in their opening brief also requests the reversal of a default judgment

dated July 7, 2014. However, the record reflects no such judgment having been entered

and the appeal was taken only from the judgment of December 14, 2015. The record

reflects that on July 7, 2014

, the trial court ordered the entry of appellants’ default. Upon

proper motion or stip ulation of the parties, the trial court may consider any application to

set aside the default.2 _________________________ Pollak, J.

We concur:

_________________________ McGuiness, P. J.

_________________________ Siggins, J.

A147087
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.50


July 8, 2004


Elizabeth Triana


Dear Elizabeth,

RE:      EMPLOYEE SHARE INCENTIVE PLAN AND EMPLOYEE SHARE OPTION PLAN

In accordance with the Employee Share Incentive Plan ("the Preference Share
Plan"), you are hereby advised that the Grant Date is July 6, 2004 for benefits
you have accrued during the year ended 31 December 2003.

Accordingly you are granted 73 Preference Shares in the Company. You have the
option to purchase an equal number of Preference Shares at a price of US$13.45
or CI$11.21 each, which has been calculated in accordance to the terms of the
Preference Share Plan. If you intend to exercise this option, then payment must
be received in full no later than the close of business on AUGUST 5, 2004.

As a member of the Employee Share Option Plan ("the Option Plan"), you will also
be granted, as of July 6, 2004, the option to purchase 365 Ordinary Shares in
the Company. These options are exercisable in accordance to the terms of the
Option Plan. You furthermore have the opportunity to obtain an equal amount of
options to purchase Ordinary Shares of the Company, in accordance to the terms
of the Option Plan, if you exercise your right to purchase the above additional
Preference Shares before AUGUST 5, 2004.

Your continued dedication and hard work have contributed to another successful
year for Consolidated Water, and I look forward to a very bright future.

Yours sincerely,
CONSOLIDATED WATER CO. LTD.


/s/ Frederick W. McTaggart

Frederick W. McTaggart
President and CEO
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3139 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3139

 To extend the authorization of the national flood insurance program, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              July 9, 2009

 Ms. Waters (for herself, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, Mrs. Capito, Ms. 
   Matsui, Ms. Speier, Mr. Jones, Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. Kanjorski, Mr. 
  Gerlach, and Mr. Hinojosa) introduced the following bill; which was 
            referred to the Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To extend the authorization of the national flood insurance program, 
                        and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM.

    (a) Program Extension.--Section 1319 of the National Flood 
Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4026) is amended by striking 
``September 30, 2008'' and inserting ``March 31, 2010''.
    (b) Financing.--Section 1309(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 4016(a)) is 
amended by striking ``September 30, 2008'' and inserting ``March 31, 
2010''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF PILOT PROGRAM FOR MITIGATION OF SEVERE REPETITIVE 
              LOSS PROPERTIES.

    Section 1361A of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 
U.S.C. 4102a) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (k)(1), by striking ``2005, 2006, 2007, 
        2008, and 2009'' and inserting ``2009 and 2010''; and
            (2) by striking subsection (l).
                                 <all>
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Larry William BOYER, Appellant.

No. 11-1994.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: July 22, 2011.

Filed: July 26, 2011.

Richard D. Westphal, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Davenport, IA, for Appellee.

Larry William Boyer, Silver Springs, FL, pro se.

Terence L. McAtee, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Davenport, IA, for Appellant.

Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal, Larry William Boyer appeals the within-Guidelines-range sentence the district court1 imposed after he pled guilty to theft of government money, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641. His counsel has filed a brief under *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), questioning the reasonableness of the district court’s decision to impose a term of imprisonment. Counsel has also moved to withdraw.

We conclude that the district court did not commit any procedural error in sentencing Boyer, and imposed a substantively reasonable sentence. *See Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007) (in reviewing sentence, appellate court first ensures that district court committed no significant procedural error, and then considers substantive reasonableness of sentence under abuse-of-discretion standard; if sentence is within Guidelines range, appellate court may apply presumption of reasonableness). Nothing in the record indicates that the district court failed to consider a relevant sentencing factor, gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors. *United States v. Haack,*403 F.3d 997, 1004 (8th Cir.2005) (describing ways in which court might abuse its discretion at sentencing).

*666Having reviewed the record independently under *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm.

1

. The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Artemio RAMOS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-14514

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

March 30, 2011.

Wifredo A. Ferrer, Allyson Fritz, George M. Karavetsos, Jonathan E. Lopez, Suzan H. Ponzoli, Kathleen M. Salyer, Anne R. Schultz, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Artemio Ramos, Jr., Anthony, NM, pro se.

*896Before BARKETT, HULL and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Artemio Ramos, Jr., a federal prisoner proceeding *pro se,*appeals the district court’s denial of two belated post-conviction motions, in which he challenged the adequacy of the government’s notice to enhance his sentence pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 851. However, the district court has rejected Ramos’s argument in at least one previous ruling that he did not appeal. As a result, Ramos’s argument is foreclosed by the law of the case doctrine. *See United States v. Escobar-Urrego,*110 F.3d 1556, 1560 (11th Cir.1997).

To the extent Ramos’s motions should have been construed as motions to vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, we construe the notice of appeal here as an application for a certifícate of appealability (“COA”), *see Pagan v. United States,*353 F.3d 1343, 1346 (11th Cir.2003), and we find that Ramos has not met the applicable standard for obtaining a COA. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000). We further observe that Ramos has previously filed a § 2255 motion that was denied with prejudice, and he has not obtained the requisite permission from this Court to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. ■ *See*28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit
10.1


ASSIGNMENT
OF INVENTION AND PATENT APPLICATION


Whereas
I, Christine Ichim, a citizen of the Canada residing in Spring Valley, CA herein referred to as ASSIGNOR, have invented new and
useful innovations described in METHODS AND COMPOSITIONS FOR THE TREATMENT OF CANCER BY INHIBITION OF NR2F6, the specification
of which was filed on December 15, 2014 as U.S. Non-Provisional Patent Application No 14/571,262, herein referred to as the Invention


And
Whereas, Regen BioPharma, Inc., with its principal place of business at 4700 Spring St., Suite 304, La Mesa, CA 91942 herein referred
to as ASSIGNEE, desires to acquire the entire right, title, and interest in and to the said Invention,


Now
therefore, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, ASSIGNOR hereby acknowledges
that they have sold, assigned, transferred, and set over, and by these presents do hereby sell, assign, and transfer, and set
over unto ASSIGNEE and its successors and assigns, 100% of the following:


(A)
ASSIGNOR’S right, title and interest in and to the Invention entitled in METHODS AND COMPOSITIONS FOR THE TREATMENT OF CANCER
BY INHIBITION OF NR2F6, US Non- Provisional Patent Application No. 14/571,262 filed December 15, 2014,


(B)
any patent or reissues that claim priority to U.S. Non-Provisional Application No 14/571,262; and 


(C)
any continuations, continuations-in-part, substitutes, or divisionals that claim priority to US Non-Provisional Application No.
14/571,262.


ASSIGNOR
authorizes and requests the Commissioner for Patents to issue any resulting patent(s) as follows: 0% to ASSIGNOR and 100% to ASSIGNEE.


ASSIGNOR
hereby further sells, assigns, transfers and sets over unto ASSIGNEE, 100% of ASSIGNOR’S entire right, title, and interest
in and to said invention in the United States and every country foreign to the United States. ASSIGNOR agrees to execute all papers,
give any required testimony, and perform other lawful acts, at ASSIGNEE’S expense, as ASSIGNEE may require to enable ASSIGNEE
to perfect ASSIGNEE’S interest in any resulting patent of the United States and countries foreign thereto, and to acquire,
hold, enforce, convey, and uphold the validity of said patent and reissues and extensions thereof, and ASSIGNEE’S interest
therein. 


In
testimony whereof ASSIGNOR intending to be legally bound hereunto affix his signature. 


ASSIGNOR 


	/s/ Christine Ichim	December 16, 2014
	(Christine Ichim)	(Date)
#### People, Respondent, v William Jones, Appellant.

[666 NYS2d 529]

—Motion to dismiss appeal granted; motion to vacate order staying execution of judgment of conviction denied as unnecessary; motion for order of forfeiture denied. Memorandum: Defendant’s appeal is dismissed because it was not timely perfected *(see,*22 NYCRR 1000.13 [e]). Alternatively, the ap*1145peal must be dismissed because defendant “is not presently available to obey the mandate of [this Court] in the event of an affirmance” *(People v Hill,*50 NY2d 894, *mot to vacate denied*55 NY2d 800, *rearg denied*55 NY2d 975). Present—Pine, J. P., Lawton, Callahan, Balio and Fallon, JJ.
Exhibit 32.2   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  I, Thomas Lee, Chief Financial Officer of Uni Core Holdings Corporation (Company), do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:  the amended Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of the Company for the quarter ended December 31, 2012 (Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company for the periods presented therein.   Date:May 2, 2013/s/ Thomas LeeThomas LeeChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 197 (Friday, October 13, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 47780]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22038]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of notice: October 13, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
October 6, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail 
Contract 368 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at 
www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2018-5, CP2018-7.

Elizabeth A. Reed,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2017-22038 Filed 10-12-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-60380

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

TERRANCE CARVELL GUINN, also known as Terrence Carvell Guinn

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 5:99-CR-8-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Terrance Carvell Guinn seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on

appeal from the denial of his writ of error coram nobis challenging his 1999

guilty-plea conviction for possession of a firearm by a felon. 

To proceed IFP, a litigant must be economically eligible, and his appeal

must not be frivolous. Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982). The

writ of error coram nobis “is an extraordinary remedy available to a petitioner

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

February 18, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-60380

2

no longer in custody who seeks to vacate a criminal conviction in circumstances

where the petitioner can demonstrate civil disabilities as a consequence of the

criminal conviction, and that the challenged error is of sufficient magnitude to

justify the extraordinary relief.” Jimenez v. Trominski, 91 F.3d 767, 768 (5th

Cir. 1996). The writ is available “only to correct errors resulting in a complete

miscarriage of justice.” Id. Guinn argues that he is entitled to such relief

because his attorney provided ineffective assistance by failing to file a motion to

suppress or a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. He contends that there is a reasonable

probability that such motions would have been decided in his favor.

As part of an agreement with the Government, Guinn waived the right to

appeal his conviction or sentence, as well as his right to pursue relief pursuant

to § 2255 or in any postconviction proceeding. We agree with the district court

that Guinn has waived his right to pursue postconviction relief. Even if Guinn

could establish that he preserved the right to bring the present writ, he has not

raised a nonfrivolous issue regarding whether he was entitled to relief. Guinn

offers no argument or factual basis on which a motion to suppress or a § 2255

motion could have been filed. His conclusional assertions do not support any

claim for extraordinary relief. See United States v. Dyer, 136 F.3d 417, 423 (5th

Cir. 1998) (holding that appellant had not made a showing “with the clarity

requisite for coram nobis relief”). Accordingly, Guinn has not presented a

nonfrivolous issue for appeal. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th

Cir. 1983). 

The motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED, and the appeal

is DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
EXHIBIT 23.1



                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


         We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration
statements of Innkeepers USA Trust on Form S-3 (File No. 33-97932, 333-20309,
333-31923, 333-37505, 333-53919, 333-53955, 333-58811, 333-70873 and 333-93465),
of our reports (i) dated February 25, 2000 relating to the consolidated
financial statements of Innkeepers USA Trust; (ii) dated February 25, 2000
relating to the financial statement schedule of Innkeepers USA Trust; and (iii)
dated February 29, 2000 relating to the combined financial statements of
Innkeepers Hospitality, which appear in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. We also
consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Selected Financial
Data."



PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


Dallas, Texas
March 1, 2000
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-40720

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

LUIS JASSO BOTELLO,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:09-CR-325-1

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Luis Jasso Botello

has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 

229 (5th Cir. 2011). Jasso Botello 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 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 21, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-40720 Document: 00513012876 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/21/2015
No. 14-40720

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.

2

 Case: 14-40720 Document: 00513012876 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/21/2015
Rel: December 22, 2023

STATE OF ALABAMA -- JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

THE SUPREME COURT

OCTOBER TERM, 2023-2024

SC-2023-0420

Leah Abbott Belser v. Marion County (Appeal from Marion Circuit Court: 

CV-22-900092).

WISE, Justice.

AFFIRMED. NO OPINION.

See Rule 53(a)(1) and (a)(2)(E), Ala. R. App. P.

Parker, C.J., and Shaw, Bryan, Mendheim, Stewart, Mitchell, and 

Cook, JJ., concur.

Sellers, J., concurs in the result.