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

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                              SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                      2,425,500 
<SECURITIES>                                        0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                  10,200 
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0 
<INVENTORY>                                         0 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            2,435,700       
<PP&E>                                      7,186,100      
<DEPRECIATION>                              1,428,200    
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              8,206,800      
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         629,700    
<BONDS>                                             0  
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0 
<PREFERRED>                                         0 
<COMMON>                                            0 
<OTHER-SE>                                  7,555,500       
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                8,206,800         
<SALES>                                             0          
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            1,279,800          
<CGS>                                               0          
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 708,100          
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               56,300       
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0      
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  0       
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               325,200       
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0      
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           325,200      
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0  
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0      
<CHANGES>                                           0  
<NET-INCOME>                                  325,200 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    2.02 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    2.02 
        

</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 January 31, 2014

t0127

Order 

Clerk

January 31, 2014

148017 & (26)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 148017

COA: 313807

Macomb CC: 06-002154-FC

LADARIUS KESHOUE GILBERT,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 10, 2013 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). The 

motion to remand is DENIED.
EXHIBIT 32(B)

                            CERTIFICATION 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 Quaterly Report of Murray United Development
Corp. on Form 10-QSB for the period ending January 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Anthony Campo,
Chairman of the Board and Chief Financial and Accounting Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:


1. The Report 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 the Company.


Date:  June 13, 2005

                                    /s/ Anthony Campo
                                    ------------------------------------------
                                    ANTHONY CAMPO,
                                    Chairman of the Board and Chief Financial
                                    and Accounting Officer
#### Danilo MIRANDA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND AT COLLEGE PARK, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 07-1000.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 22, 2008.

Decided: May 27, 2008.

Danilo Miranda, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Marzo Borinsky, Carolyn Waters Skolnik, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Danilo Miranda appeals the district court’s order dismissing his race and national origin discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2000).* We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Miranda v. Univ. of MD, Coll. Park,*No. 8:04-cv-02609-AW (D. Md. entered Nov. 20, 2006; filed Nov. 21, 2006). 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.*

*

 Although Miranda also asserted an age discrimination claim against Defendant under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 to 634 (2000), the district court dismissed that claim by separate order. Miranda does not challenge that order on appeal.
EXHIBIT 99.2



CERTIFICATE OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Gregory S. Curhan, Chief Financial Officer of Ratexchange
Corporation (the 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 my knowledge:



| |  |  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the 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.
| | - |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: April 30,
2003



/s/     GREGORY S. CURHANGregory S. Curhan Chief Financial Officer
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-2215

_____________________________

SHANDS JACKSONVILLE MEDICAL

CENTER, INC., d/b/a UF HEALTH 

JACKSONVILLE,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT 

OF HEALTH; and ORANGE PARK 

MEDICAL CENTER, INC., d/b/a 

ORANGE PARK MEDICAL CENTER,

Appellees.

_____________________________

On appeal from final order of the Department of Health.

W. David Watkins, Administrative Law Judge.

November 30, 2018

PER CURIAM.

Shands Jacksonville Medical Center, Inc., appeals from the 

order approving the provisional trauma center application of 

Orange Park Medical Center, Inc., asserting three issues: (a) that 

the need for the new trauma center may not be deferred until the 

final selection phase of the process; (b) that the Department of 

Health was operating pursuant to an unadopted rule; and (c) that 

the Department erred in allowing the new trauma center to begin 

its operations prior to the completion of Shands’ administrative 

challenge. As to issue (a), we affirm based on State, Dep't of Health 
2

v. Bayfront HMA Med. Ctr., LLC, 236 So. 3d 466 (Fla. 1st DCA 

Jan. 2, 2018). As to issue (b), we affirm based on State, Dep't of 

Health v. Shands Jacksonville Medical Center, No. 1D17-1713

(Fla. 1st DCA Nov. 13, 2018). As to issue (c), we conclude that the 

matter is moot.

AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part.

WETHERELL, MAKAR, and WINSOR, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Seann M. Frazier and Marc Ito of Parker Hudson Rainer & Dobbs, 

LLP, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

William Dean Hall, III, Marc W. Dunbar, and Daniel R. Russell of 

Jones Walker LLP, Tallahassee, for Appellee Department of 

Health.

Stephen A. Ecenia, J. Stephen Menton, and Gabriel F. V. Warren 

of Rutledge Ecenia, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellee Orange Park 

Medical Center.
Exhibit 23





                          Independent Auditors' Consent






The Board of Directors
Capital Associates, Inc.:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration  statements on Form
S-8 (No.  33-59570  and No. 33- 68514)  and Form S-3 (No.  33-65059)  of Capital
Associates,  Inc. of our  reports  dated  September  10,  1999,  relating to the
consolidated  balance sheets of Capital Associates,  Inc. and subsidiaries as of
May 31,  1999 and 1998,  and the  related  consolidated  statements  of  income,
changes  in  stockholders'  equity,  and cash flows for each of the years in the
three- year period ended May 31, 1999, and the related  schedule,  which reports
appear in the May 31,  1999  Annual  Report on Form 10-K of Capital  Associates,
Inc.





                                          /s/KPMG LLP
                                          -----------------------
                                          KPMG LLP


Denver, Colorado
September 10, 1999
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LARRY GENE HEGGEM,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

ANDREA HOLMES, Maiden name

“Mathern”; JOHN DOE,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 12-36014

D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01997-RSM

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Ricardo S. Martinez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 17, 2013** 

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

Washington state prisoner Larry Gene Heggem appeals pro se from the

district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that

defendant Holmes violated his constitutional rights in connection with the

FILED

JAN 02 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
revocation of his Drug Offender Sentencing Alternative (“DOSA”) placement and

his return to prison. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de

novo a district court’s application of the doctrines of claim preclusion and issue

preclusion. Littlejohn v. United States, 321 F.3d 915, 919 (9th Cir. 2003). We

affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Heggem’s claims that did not

necessarily involve the revocation of Heggem’s DOSA sentence as barred by the

doctrine of claim preclusion because those claim were raised or could have been

raised in the prior federal action that Heggem brought against Holmes in 2007. See

Owens v. Kaiser Found. Heath Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 713 (9th Cir. 2001)

(setting forth elements of claim preclusion under federal law).

The district court properly dismissed Heggem’s claims that implicated the

validity of the revocation of Heggem’s DOSA sentence as barred by the doctrine of

issue preclusion because the issue of the validity of the revocation of Heggem’s

DOSA sentence was previously decided by the Washington Supreme Court when it

denied Heggem’s personal restraint petition. See Christensen v. Grant Cnty. Hosp.

Dist. No. 1, 96 P.3d 957, 960-61 (Wash. 2004) (setting forth elements of issue

preclusion under Washington law).

2 12-36014
We reject Heggem’s contentions concerning his attempt to amend the

complaint in his prior federal action and the merits of his claims.

AFFIRMED.

3 12-36014
**FEDERALMINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION**

**1331PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW**

**SUITE520N**

**WASHINGTON,DC  20004**

** **

 

 

June 10, 2014

 

 

TIMEAND DATE:                10:00 a.m., Wednesday, June 18, 2014

 

PLACE:                                  TheRichard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511N, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,Washington, DC 20004 (entry from    F Street entrance)

 

STATUS:                                Open

 

MATTERSTO BE 

CONSIDERED:                     TheCommission will consider and act upon the following in open session: *Secretaryof Labor v. Jim Walter Resources, Inc.,* Docket Nos. SE 2008-881, et al. (Issuesinclude whether the Administrative Law Judge erred by assessing a civil penaltythat was substantially lower than the proposed penalty.)  The public meetingoriginally scheduled at this time for *Secretary of Labor v. Emerald CoalResources*, Docket No. PENN 2009-697, and consolidated cases has beenpostponed.

 

Any person attending this meeting who requires specialaccessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign languageinterpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs.  Subject to29 C.F.R. § 2706.150(a)(3) and § 2706.160(d).

 

 

CONTACTPERSON 

FOR MORE INFO:                Jean Ellen        (202) 434-9950 / (202) 708-9300 for TDD Relay / 1-800-877-8339 for toll free.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   46,329
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    104,431
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               155,443
<PP&E>                                         677,543
<DEPRECIATION>                                 601,209
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 674,271
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,651,893
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    400,000
<COMMON>                                       101,821
<OTHER-SE>                                 (2,479,443)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   674,271
<SALES>                                        465,251
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               465,251
<CGS>                                          353,242
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,038,942
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,068,904
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             208,447
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                495,213
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            495,213
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   495,213
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jeremy Leslie ADAMS, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 09-30443.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 1, 2010.*

Filed Nov. 9, 2010.

Lori Anne Harper Suek, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

*204Mark D. Meyer, Ugrin Alexander Zadick & Higgins, P.C., Great Falls, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: W. FLETCHER and FISHER, Circuit Judges, and BURY, District Judge.**

*

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

**

 The Honorable David C. Bury, United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

Jeremy Leslie Adams appeals from his conviction and sentence for sexually abusing his cousin after a night of heavy drinking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153(a), 2242(2)(B). We affirm.

Adams’ conviction is supported by sufficient evidence. The evidence adduced at trial, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, was adequate to allow any rational trier of fact to find the essential element of sexual penetration beyond a reasonable doubt. *See United States v. Nevils,*598 F.3d 1158, 1163-64 (9th Cir.2010) (en banc). The victim’s testimony was, as the district court explained, graphic, specific, detailed and believable. Although Dr. Uphues’ examination did not find evidence of penetration, nothing in the doctor’s findings required the jury to disbelieve the victim’s testimony.

Adams’ 200-month sentence is free from procedural error and substantively reasonable. The district court correctly calculated the Sentencing Guidelines range, used the guidelines range as a starting point, considered the sentencing factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and adequately explained the basis of its decision. The court reasonably determined that Adams’ criminal history score does not significantly overstate his criminal history. The court considered Adams’ history of mental illness and intoxication as mitigating factors, but reasonably determined that other factors — including the seriousness of this offense, Adams’ extensive criminal history and Adams’ disregard for the law and the rights of others— weighed against the variance sought by Adams. The sentence is not unreasonable. *See Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 59-60, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007) (“On abuse-of-discretion review, the Court of Appeals should [give] due deference to the District Court’s reasoned and reasonable decision that the § 3553(a) factors, on the whole, justified the sentence.”).

AFFIRMED.

***

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

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-1622

JENNIFER RAQUEL TAYLOR,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

E. H. MCDEVITT, Officer; K. LIEDKIE, Officer; SCOTT PITTS; ROY LONG HARTIS,

Defendants - Appellees.

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

Statesville. Kenneth D. Bell, District Judge. (5:20-cv-00196-KDB-DSC)

Submitted: January 17, 2023 Decided: January 19, 2023

Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jennifer Raquel Taylor, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1622 Doc: 8 Filed: 01/19/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Jennifer Raquel Taylor seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without 

prejudice her amended 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a 

claim, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). We dismiss the appeal for lack of 

jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

In civil cases, parties have 30 days after the entry of the district court’s final 

judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court 

extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under 

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a 

jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).

The district court entered its order on April 9, 2021. Taylor filed her notice of appeal 

on May 26, 2021. Because Taylor failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an 

extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny Taylor’s motion for default judgment 

and dismiss the appeal.

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.

DISMISSED

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1622 Doc: 8 Filed: 01/19/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                       1,995,355
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   93,215
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         104,831
<DEPRECIATION>                                  76,338
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,379,779
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          147,533
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        16,732
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,389,731
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,379,779
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                77,726
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               437,072
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (359,346)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (359,346)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 599,200
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   239,854
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .14
        

</TABLE>