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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-29-2000
<CASH>                                             322
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     3852
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                       9778
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 13952
<PP&E>                                         2301677
<DEPRECIATION>                                  466205
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1937346
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2131201
<BONDS>                                        2097958
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        289
<COMMON>                                      20545663
<OTHER-SE>                                  (22837765)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1937346
<SALES>                                           6091
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  6091
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               2273911
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              137949
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (2337079)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (2337079)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (2337079)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.01)


</TABLE>
I N THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE O F FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT N OT FINAL UNTIL TIME E XPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

T ERRY ANTONIO CARTER , A ppellant ,
v. Case No

. 5D 22

- 982 LT Cas e No. 2021- CF

- 00239

S TATE OF FLORIDA , A ppellee

.

_

_______________________________/ O pinion filed April 21, 2023 Appeal from the Circu it Court for Flagler County , Terence R. Perkins , Judge. Matthew J. Metz , Public Defender, and Jane Almy, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Robin A. Compton, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

P ER CURIAM.2 A ppellant, Terry Antonio Carter, was charged with one count of battery and one count of false imprisonment. After his motion for judgment of acquittal was denied, the jury returned guilty verdicts as to both counts. The trial court adjudicated him guilty on both counts and imposed legal sentences. However, when it imposed $809 in costs in the order regarding community control, the trial court failed to include statutory citations for each cost, despite the legal requirement to do so. See V.D. v. State , 922 So. 2d 1037, 1038 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (citing Miller v. State , 912 So. 2d 1282 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)). Accordingly, having considered the Anders brief and finding only the error regarding costs, we affirm the judgment and sentence, but remand for entry of an amended order of community control to include appropriate statutory citations for the authority to impose each item of cost. AFFIRMED; REMAND ED FOR ENTRY OF AMENDED ORDER.

L AMBERT, C.J., EDWARDS and JAY , JJ., concur.
#### Freddy J. SWACKHAMER, Appellant, v. Robert SCOTT, Dr., Mr., Arkansas Department of Correction; Mohammed Ahmed, Dr., Mr., Arkansas Department of Correction; Sandra Stratton-Ashcraft, Med. Admin., Varner Unit, ADC; Dona Gordon, Director of Nursing, Varner Unit, ADC; Laura Marie *545McCarty; Grant Harris, Warden, Varner Unit, ADC; Wendy Kelly, Deputy Director, Arkansas Department of Correction, Appellees.

No. 07-2658.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: May 7, 2008.

Filed: May 8, 2008.

Freddy J. Swackhamer, Pine Bluff, AR, pro se.

Warden-AR, Arkansas Department of Correction, Grady, AR, for Appellant.

Alan R. Humphries, Humphries & Lewis, White Hall, AR, Kynda Almefty-Hernandez, Mitchell & Williams, Rogers, AR, for Appellees.

Before WOLLMAN, RILEY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

[UNPUBLISHED]

PER CURIAM.

Arkansas inmate Freddy Swackhamer filed this pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action claiming that various prison officials and healthcare providers showed deliberate indifference to his serious medical need by delaying treatment for a ganglion cyst on his right hand. The action remains pending, but Swackhamer has filed this interlocutory appeal to challenge the district court’s1 denial of his motion for appointment of counsel. Following careful review, we affirm. *See Slaughter v. City of Maplewood,*731 F.2d 587, 588-89 (8th Cir. 1984) (in certain types of cases, including § 1983 actions, appellate court has jurisdiction to review — for abuse of discretion — district court’s interlocutory decision to deny appointment of counsel).

Early in the proceedings, the court denied Swackhamer’s request for counsel upon finding that his claims were not legally or factually complex and that Swackhamer showed he was capable of presenting his case without the benefit of appointed counsel. In denying Swackhamer’s subsequent motions for counsel, the court relied on that first ruling and the absence of any reason to revisit or modify it. We reject Swackhamer’s argument on appeal that the district court abused its discretion in light of Swackhamer’s mental illness and psychotropic medications, because — despite these circumstances — Swackhamer demonstrated an ability to understand and present his claims, which we agree with the court are not overly complex. *See Stevens v. Red-wing,*146 F.3d 538, 546 (8th Cir.1998) (pro se litigant has no statutory right to have counsel appointed in civil case; relevant factors to consider include complexity of case, ability of indigent litigant to investigate facts, existence of conflicting testimony, and ability of indigent to present his claim).

The judgment is affirmed.

1

. The Honorable H. David Young, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by the consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the TiVo Inc. (the Company) Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending
October 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Anna Brunelle, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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:

1. The Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2. The information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods indicated.

Date: December 9, 2009



/s/    ANNA BRUNELLEAnna BrunelleChief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3414 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3414

 To name the Department of Veterans Affairs temporary lodging facility 
     in Indianapolis, Indiana, as the ``Otis Bowen Comfort Home''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 30, 2009

  Mr. Carson of Indiana (for himself, Mr. Visclosky, Mr. Donnelly of 
 Indiana, Mr. Souder, Mr. Buyer, Mr. Burton of Indiana, Mr. Pence, Mr. 
   Ellsworth, and Mr. Hill) introduced the following bill; which was 
             referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To name the Department of Veterans Affairs temporary lodging facility 
     in Indianapolis, Indiana, as the ``Otis Bowen Comfort Home''.

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

SECTION 1. NAME OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS TEMPORARY LODGING 
              FACILITY, INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA.

    The Department of Veterans Affairs temporary lodging facility in 
Indianapolis, Indiana, shall after the date of the enactment of this 
Act be known and designated as the ``Otis Bowen Comfort Home''. Any 
reference to such temporary lodging facility in any law, regulation, 
map, document, record, or other paper of the United States shall be 
considered to be a reference to the Otis Bowen Comfort Home.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 35.2
                     SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (ITEM 1123)
                               GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC
                 RAMP SERIES 2006-RS2 TRUST (THE "ISSUING ENTITY")

      The  undersigned,  a duly  authorized  officer of GMAC  Mortgage,  LLC, as
      servicer (the "Servicer")  pursuant to the applicable servicing agreement,
      does hereby certify that:

      1. A review of the Servicer's  activities during the period covered by the
      Issuing  Entity's  report on Form 10-K and of the  Servicer's  performance
      under  the  applicable   servicing   agreement  has  been  made  under  my
      supervision.

      2. To the best of my  knowledge,  based on such  review,  the Servicer has
      fulfilled all of its obligations under the applicable  servicing agreement
      in all material respects  throughout such period.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this
     26th day of March 2007.

      By:      /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
            ------------------------
            Name:  Anthony N. Renzi
            Title:    Executive Vice President
Eighth Amendment to Employment Agreement


 Exhibit 10.5 
 EIGHTH AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 This Eighth Amendment to Employment Agreement is made and entered into as
of January 1, 2007, by and between PriceSmart, Inc., a Delaware Corporation (“Employer”) and Edward Oats (“Executive”). 
 Recitals 
  

	A)	On January 11, 2000 an Employment Agreement was made and entered into by and between Employer and Executive. 

  

	B)	Said Employment Agreement has been amended on seven prior occasions; 

  

	C)	Employer and Executive now desire to further amend the Employment Agreement, as set forth hereinbelow: 

 Agreement 
  

	1.	Section 2.1 of the Agreement which, as amended, provides: 

 2.1 Salary. For Executive’s services hereunder, Employer shall pay as base salary to Executive the amount of $182,300 during each year of the Employment Term. Said salary shall be payable in equal installments in conformity with
Employer’s normal payroll period. Executive shall receive such salary increases, if any, as Employer, in its sole discretion, shall determine. 
 is hereby amended, effective January 1, 2007, to provide as follows: 
 2.1 Salary. For Executive’s services
hereunder, Employer shall pay as base salary to Executive the amount of $188,000 during each year of the Employment Term. Said salary shall be payable in equal installments in conformity with Employer’s normal payroll period. Executive shall
receive such salary increases, if any, as Employer, in its sole discretion, shall determine. 
  

	2.	All other terms of the Employment Agreement, as amended, shall remain unaltered and fully effective. 

 Executed in San Diego, California, as of the date first written above. 
  

							
	EXECUTIVE	 		 	EMPLOYER
			
		 		 	PRICESMART, INC.
				
	Edward Oats	 		 	By:	 	  

	  
	 		 	Name:	 	Jose Luis Laparte
		 		 	Its:	 	President
Consulting Agreement, dated February 3, 2005



 Exhibit 10.21 
  
 February 3, 2005 
 Mr. W. Gerald Throgmartin 
 Gregg Appliances, Inc. 
 4151 E. 96th Street 
 Indianapolis, Indiana 46240 
  
 Dear Gerald: 
  
 This letter confirms our agreement regarding the terms of your employment,
effective February 3, 2005. 
  
 The general terms of your
employment will be as follows: 
  
 Position and Duties. You
will continue as a consultant to the Chief Executive Officer of Gregg Appliances, Inc. (the “Company”), and your employment will remain subject to the Company’s standard employment policies for such a position, unless otherwise stated
to the contrary in this letter. Your duties will remain consistent with those duties performed by you in the past for the Company and you will agree to devote such time and effort as may reasonably be required by the Chief Executive Officer.

  
 Compensation. Beginning February 3, 2005, your base
annual rate of compensation will be $25,000.00. All compensation payments are subject to taxes and other withholdings required by law. We will not reduce your base rate of compensation during your term of employment except by mutual agreement
between you and the Company. 
  
 Duration of Employment.
Unless earlier terminated by you in writing, your employment will be for five (5) years. 
  
 Benefits. You will continue to be eligible for the Company’s benefits plans on the same basis as they are provided to all employees with similar levels of responsibility. 
  
  
 [SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS] 








					
	 	 	Very truly yours,
		
	 	 	GREGG APPLIANCES, INC.
			
	 	 	By:	 	/s/ Jerry W.
Throgmartin                                      
  
	 	 	 	 	Jerry W. Throgmartin, Chief Executive Officer
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 Agreed to and accepted by: /s/ W. Gerald Throgmartin        

	                                        
       W. Gerald Throgmartin


  
 Date:
        February 3, 2005
Rental Contracts



 










EXHIBIT 10.18




RENTAL AGREEMENT




BETWEEN:



INTERNATIONAL ABSORBENTS INC.

1569 DEMPSEY ROAD

NORTH VANCOUVER, B.C.

V7K 1S8




(herein referred to as the “Company”)




AND



ABE INDUSTRIES (1980) INC.

1569 DEMPSEY ROAD

NORTH VANCOUVER, B.C.

V7K 1S8




(herein referred to as “ABE”)



THIS RENTAL AGREEMENT (the “Agreement”) is made and entered into this 15th day of March, 2003,
by and between International Absorbents Inc., a British Columbia corporation and ABE Industries
(1980) Inc., a British Columbia corporation.




     Effective herewith, the Company hereby agrees to rent the premises at 1569 Dempsey Road,
North Vancouver, British Columbia (the “Premises”) and ABE hereby agrees to such rental. The
rental of premises is established to represent the Company’s head office in British Columbia.



     The term of the rental and services agreement hereunder shall be for a period of five (5)
years, commencing on the date of this Agreement. The term, subject to earlier termination as
specified hereafter, will automatically renew on the first and each subsequent anniversary of the
Agreement until terminated.



     The Premises consists of 1,640 square feet of office space. The Company shall make monthly
payments on the 1st of each month to ABE in the amount of Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00)
for the Premises provided, subject to change upon mutual agreement of the parties.



     This agreement shall terminate on the 1st of the month subsequent the date that is
two (2) months following the written submission.


The parties have executed and sealed this Agreement as of the day and year set forth above.




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	INTERNATIONAL ABSORBENTS INC.	 	ABE INDUSTRIES (1980) INC.	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Signed:

	 	/s/ Doug Ellis
	 	Signed:
	 	/s/ Gordon L. Ellis
	 	 
	 

	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Douglas Ellis, Secretary
	 	 	 	Gordon L. Ellis	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Date:

	 	March 15, 2003
	 	Date:
	 	March 15, 2003
ex103.htm












Description of Oral Contract with Leisa Swanson.







Pursuant to verbal agreement, Leisa Swanson has agreed to act as our President, Chief Executive Officer, and Director to manage the affairs of the Company for a one (1) year period beginning on the Effective Date, and thereafter the Term shall be automatically extended for successive one-year periods unless and until such time as either Leisa Swanson or the Company shall give written notice to the other at least 30 days prior to the expiration of the then current Term that no such automatic extension shall occur. In exchange, Leisa Swanson shall receive a monthly fee of $5,000 per calendar month. Such fee shall be payable on the first day of each calendar quarter. The fees due and owing Leisa Swanson will not have a current impact on our liquidity and capital resources as all compensation due and owing Leisa Swanson is being accrued and deferred until such time that Leisa Swanson, in her sole discretion, believes it to be in the best interest of the Company to pay any such amounts due and owing. There are no annuity, pension or retirement benefits proposed to be paid to our current officer and director and employees in the event of retirement at normal retirement date pursuant to any presently existing plan provided or contributed to by the Company or any of its subsidiaries, if any. As of the date of this Prospectus, no funds have been paid to Leisa Swanson.
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 207 (Friday, October 27, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 49799]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-23412]



[[Page 49799]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2512-075; Project No. 14439-001]


Notice of Availability of Final Environmental Assessment; Hawks 
Nest Hydro, LLC

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) 
regulations, 18 CFR part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office 
of Energy Projects has reviewed the applications for new licenses for 
the Hawks Nest Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project No. 2512-075) and 
the Glen Ferris Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project No. 14439-001) 
located in Fayette County, West Virginia, and has prepared a final 
Environmental Assessment (final EA) for the projects.
    In the final EA, Commission staff analyzes the potential 
environmental effects of the projects, and concludes that relicensing 
the projects, with appropriate environmental protective measures, would 
not constitute a major federal action that would significantly affect 
the quality of the human environment.
    A copy of the final EA is on file with the Commission and is 
available for public inspection. The final EA may also be viewed on the 
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. 
Enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits in the docket 
number field, to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC 
Online Support at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#692f2c3b2a26070500070c3a1c1919061b1d290f0c1b0a470e061f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d4929186979bbab8bdbab187a1a4a4bba6a094b2b1a6b7fab3bba2">[email protected]</span></a>, (866) 208-3676 (toll 
free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY).
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances 
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC 
Online Support.
    For further information, contact Monir Chowdhury at (202) 502-6736.

    Dated: October 20, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-23412 Filed 10-26-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Hugh GARCIA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James YATES, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 08-56996.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2011.*

Filed March 17, 2011.

Hugh Garcia, Coalinga, CA, pro se.

*585Jerald Lee Brainin, Esquire, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Kevin Vienna, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Office of the California Attorney General, San Diego, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Hugh Garcia appeals from the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as untimely. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.

Garcia contends that he is entitled to equitable tolling due to the absence of Spanish language legal materials in the prison law library. This claim fails because, although Garcia has submitted some evidence that he attempted to procure both legal assistance and legal materials in Spanish, he has not shown that, throughout the period for which tolling is sought, he was diligently pursuing “either legal materials in his own language or translation assistance from an inmate, library personnel, or other source.” *Mendoza v. Carey,*449 F.3d 1065, 1070 (9th Cir.2006).

Garcia also claims that he is entitled to equitable tolling due to his mental incompetence. Garcia has presented considerable evidence that he suffers from a delusional disorder. Moreover, the crux of the claims in his petition is that his constitutional rights were violated when he was permitted to represent himself at trial notwithstanding this disorder. For these reasons, remand is warranted for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Garcia’s delusional disorder is an extraordinary circumstance that prevented a timely federal filing. *See Holland v. Florida,*-U.S.-, 130 S.Ct. 2549, 2560-62, 177 L.Ed.2d 130 (2010); *Laws v. Lamarque,*351 F.3d 919 (9th Cir.2003) (remand warranted for good-faith allegation that would, if true, support equitable tolling).

We construe Garcia’s remaining arguments as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability. So construed, the motion is denied. *See*9th Cir. R. 22 — 1(e); *see also Hiivala v. Wood,*195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED in part, VACATED and REMANDED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.