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

<ARTICLE>                                                      5
<LEGEND>
(Replace this text with legend, if applicable)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                                 0000826682
<NAME>                         Meridian Healthcare Growth and Income Fund LP
<MULTIPLIER>                                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                          U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                              3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                    DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                        JAN-1-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                         MAR-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                                1
<CASH>                                                 4,808,000
<SECURITIES>                                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          6,096,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      11,432,000
<PP&E>                                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        52,386,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 33,810,000
<BONDS>                                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                          0
<PREFERRED>                                                    0
<COMMON>                                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          52,386,000
<SALES>                                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      11,953,000
<CGS>                                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      11,199,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       518,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                          236,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      236,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                0
<CHANGES>                                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                             236,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                              0.000
<EPS-DILUTED>                                              0.000
        


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             Jun-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                Jul-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                  Jun-30-1997
<CASH>                        843,709
<SECURITIES>                  929,204
<RECEIVABLES>                 18,046,164
<ALLOWANCES>                  (45,500)
<INVENTORY>                   619,242
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              22,627,438
<PP&E>                        8,004,731
<DEPRECIATION>                (337,350)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                33,409,732
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         7,284,416
<BONDS>                       0
<COMMON>                      2,125
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         0
<PREFERRED>                   0
<OTHER-SE>                    9,963,938
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  33,409,732
<SALES>                       34,437,625
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              34,437,625
<CGS>                         24,824,582
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 32,616,801
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            933,632
<INCOME-PRETAX>               1,042,730
<INCOME-TAX>                  450,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           592,730
<DISCONTINUED>                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>               0
<CHANGES>                     0
<NET-INCOME>                  592,730
<EPS-PRIMARY>                 0.28
<EPS-DILUTED>                 0.28
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 23.01**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

As independent public accountants to Environmental Power Corporation (the “Company”), we hereby consent to theincorporation by reference of our report dated March 11, 2005 in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 in the company’s previously filed (i) Registration Statement on Form S-8 (File No.33-70078), (ii) Registration Statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-98559), and (iii) Registration Statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-118521). 

 

/s/ VITALE, CATURANO & Co., Ltd. 

 

Boston, Massachusetts 

March 29, 2005
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

SUNSHINE ACT NOTICE

BAC 6735-01

November 26, 2014

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m., Thursday, December 11, 2014

PLACE: The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511N, 1331 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20004 (enter from 

F Street entrance)

STATUS: Open 

MATTERS TO BE 

CONSIDERED: The Commission will consider and act upon the following in open 

session: Secretary of Labor v. Excel Mining, LLC, Docket No.

KENT 2009-1368. (Issues include whether the Administrative Law 

Judge erred by affirming a “significant and substantial” designation 

and an “unwarrantable failure to comply” designation.) 

Any person attending this meeting who requires special 

accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language 

interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those 

needs. Subject to 29 C.F.R. § 2706.150(a)(3) and § 2706.160(d).

CONTACT PERSON 

FOR MORE INFO: Emogene Johnson (202) 434-9935 / (202) 708-9300 for TDD

Relay / 1-800-877-8339 for toll-free.

______________________________

Sarah L. Stewart

Deputy General Counsel
Exhibit 32.1

THERMA-WAVE, INC. CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

I, Boris Lipkin, in my capacity as President and Chief Executive Officer ofTherma-Wave, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Therma-Wave"), and inconnection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q filed by Therma-Wave with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2003 (the "Report"),hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

1.  The Report fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. 

2.  The information contained in the Report fairly presents,in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations ofTherma-Wave. 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906,or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting thesignature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of thiswritten statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Therma-Wave andwill be retained by Therma-Wave and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certification as of the12th day of November 2003. 

 

/s/ BorisLipkin	Boris LipkinPresident and Chief Executive Officer

 

	The foregoing certification is being furnishedsolely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall notbe deemed filed by Therma-Wave as part of the report or as a separate disclosuredocument for purposes of Section 18 or any other provision of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended.
**Exhibit 23.01**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference of ouropinion dated February 24, 2006 relating to the financial statements and financial statement schedules of Environmental Power Corporation appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the years ended December 31, 2005 and 2004 into previouslyfiled registration statements of Environmental Power Corporation on Form S-8 (File No. 333-98559); Form S-8 (File No. 33-70078); Form S-8 (File No. 33-118521); Form S-8 (File No. 333-126439); Form S-8 (File No. 333-128032); Form S-3 (File No.333-118491) and Form S-3 (File No. 333-121572). 

/s/ VITALE, CATURANO & Co., Ltd. 

Boston, Massachusetts 

March 28, 2006
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">The People of the State of New York, <br><br>against<br><br>Moses Bethune, Defendant-Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Erika M. Edwards, J. at speedy trial motion; Robert M. Mandelbaum, J., at trial; Josh E. Hanshaft, J., on remand of speedy trial motion), rendered June 24, 2015, after a jury trial, convicting him of resisting arrest, and imposing sentence.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Judgment (Erika M. Edwards, J. at speedy trial motion; Robert M. Mandelbaum, J., at trial; Josh E. Hanshaft, J., on remand of speedy trial motion), rendered June 24, 2015, affirmed.</p><p>Defendant's speedy trial motion was properly denied on remand. Defendant did not meet his burden of demonstrating that the People's statement of readiness, which is "presumed truthful and accurate," was illusory (<i>People v Brown</i>, 28 NY3d 392, 405 [2016]; <i>People v Sibblies</i>, 22 NY3d 1174, 1180 [2014]). The hearing evidence and testimony establishes that the assigned prosecutor and the People's main witness, Officer Carlos Gonzalez, were ready and available for trial at the time the People filed the December 18, 2012 off-calendar statement of readiness (<a href="../2017/2017_08302.htm" target="_blank"><i>see People v Garland</i>, 155 AD3d 527</a>, 527-528 [2017]<i>, affd </i>32 NY3d 1094 [2018]; <a href="../2017/2017_05509.htm" target="_blank"><i>People v King</i>, 152 AD3d 412</a>, 413 [2017]<i>, lv denied </i>30 NY3d 981 [2017]). The People also set forth valid reasons for their change in status at the next three court appearances, and defendant failed to show that the People were not in fact ready to proceed when they declared that they were (<i>see People v Brown</i>, 28 NY3d at 406).</p><p>The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (<i>see People v Danielson</i>, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury's credibility determinations. There was sufficient evidence that the police were trying to effect an "authorized arrest" (Penal Law ยง 205.30), in that they had probable cause to arrest defendant at least for obstruction of governmental administration in the second degree. Probable cause does not require . . . proof beyond a reasonable doubt" (<i>People v Mercado</i>, 68 NY2d 874, 877 [1986], <i>cert denied </i>479 US 1095 [1987]). Further, defendant could properly be convicted of resisting arrest even without being convicted of the underlying obstruction of governmental administration charge (<a href="../2005/2005_07317.htm" target="_blank"><i>see People v Laltoo</i>, 22 AD3d 230</a> [2005]).</p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur I concur<br>Decision Date: February 22, 2019<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-27-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         762,944
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  215,791
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,712,323
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,746,674
<PP&E>                                          97,366
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (8,645)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,914,669
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          788,796
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       163,460
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,816,598
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,914,669
<SALES>                                        343,182
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               343,182
<CGS>                                          167,252
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  167,252
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               560,997
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (383,781)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (383,781)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (383,781)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Vance Scott HENSLEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 10-6880.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 16, 2010.

Decided: Dec. 27, 2010.

Vance Scott Hensley, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Drummond Bagwell, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Vance Scott Hensley seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appeal-ability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hensley has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED.*
Exhibit 10.8



 Exhibit 10.8 
 Summary of Amendments to Sprint Executive Deferred Compensation Plan, Director’s Deferred Fee Plan and Centel Directors Deferred Compensation Plan 
 The Sprint Nextel board of directors approved amendments to the Sprint Executive Deferred Compensation Plan, the Director’s Deferred Fee Plan and the Centel
Directors Deferred Compensation Plan, effective at the time of the spin-off of Embarq on May 17, 2006, to 
  

	 	•	 	establish an Embarq stock unit fund to be credited with share units representing the dividend of Embarq stock on the share units representing Sprint Nextel stock in the plans;


  

	 	•	 	provide participants in the plans the ability to redirect the share units representing Embarq stock into any other investment alternative available in the respective plans until
December 31, 2006, after which the value of any remaining share units in the Embarq stock unit fund will be transferred into the fund representing Sprint Nextel stock; and 

  

	 	•	 	authorize the Employee Benefits Committee (the “EBC”) to make amendments to the plans for the purpose of legislative or regulatory compliance or administration of the
plans.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

PAGE
<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      FEB-29-1996
<PERIOD-START>                         MAR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                           AUG-31-1996
<CASH>                                   3,437,326
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                           33,085,195
<ALLOWANCES>                             1,141,778
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        48,213,337
<PP&E>                                   7,379,400
<DEPRECIATION>                           3,577,689
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          88,500,420
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   22,808,045
<BONDS>                                 22,229,413
<COMMON>                                    77,872
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<OTHER-SE>                              42,850,741
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            88,500,420 
<SALES>                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        50,568,011
<CGS>                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           30,756,185
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        12,642,630
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           341,301
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         570,099
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          6,257,796
<INCOME-TAX>                             2,438,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      3,819,796
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                             3,819,796
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .45
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .44
                               

</TABLE>
DiSMISS: Opinion Issued October 31. 2012.

7 7

In The 

## ntirt øf 

## pia1i FiftI! Jitrirt 

## nf axa at Ja11ai No. 05-12-01022-CV
MICHELLE EDDINS, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATiVE OF THE ESTATE OF RONALD CARY EDDINS, Appellant V. JAN DEBEUCKELAER, INDIVII)UALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF KAAT DEBEUCKELAER, CLIRISTIANE I)AEMS, MAUR1TA LARK,

INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTAFE OF KENNEF11 JOSEPIl LARK, DECEASED, AND KENNETH LARK, INDIVIDUALLY, Appellees
On Appeal from the 44th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-12-02 149-B 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Bridges, Richter, and Lang Opinion ByJustice Lang Before the Court is the parties’ joint motion to dismiss the appeal. The parties inform the Courtthattheyhave settledtheirdifferences. Accordinglywe granttheparties’ motionanddismiss the appeal. 

### See TEx. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(2).

/ / 

### /I 3 OUGLAS. LANG JUSTIC/’ 121022F.P05(I( 

## (!Itnirt ofApprala fift1i Jitrirt of t!xaa at Oatlaa JUDGMENT MICHELLE EDDINS, AS PERSONAL Appeal from the 44th Judicial District Court REPRF:SENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF ofDallas County, Texas. (Tr.Ct.No. DC-12- RONAL[) CARY EDDiNS, Appellant 02149-B). Opinion delivered by Justice Lang, Justices No. 05-12-01022-CV V. Bridges and Richter, participating. JAN DEBEUCKELAER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF KAAT DEBEUCKELAER, CHRISTIANE DAEMS, MAURITA LARK, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF KENNETH JOSEPH LARK, DECEASED, AND KENNETH LARK, INDIVIDUALLY, Appellees Based on the Court’s opinion ofthis date, the appeal is DISMISSED. It is ORDERED that the parties beartheirown costs ofthe appeal. Judgment entered October 31, 2012. /

1/

# g/ 14 DOUfGLAS

. LANG JUSTICE/
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 18

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently extend the

low-income housing credit.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 5, 1993

Mr. ROSTENKOWSKI (for himself, Mr. RANGEL, and Mrs. KENNELLY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways

and Means

FEBRUARY 3, 1993

Additional sponsors: Mr. CARDIN, Mr. MATSUI, Mr. JACOBS, Mr. KOPETSKI,

Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. BEREUTER, Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts, Mr.

WHEAT, Ms. PELOSI, Mr. COYNE, Mr. SUNDQUIST, Mr. LAROCCO, Mr.

MAZZOLI, Mr. ACKERMAN, Mr. BREWSTER, Ms. SHEPHERD, Mr. FRANK

of Massachusetts, Mr. ROHRABACHER, Mrs. MALONEY, Ms. MOLINARI,

Mr. BAESLER, Ms. LAMBERT, Mr. MFUME, Mr. RAHALL, Mrs. UNSOELD,

Mr. ANDREWS of New Jersey, Mr. HOCHBRUECKNER, Mr. FLAKE, Mr.

BACCHUS of Florida, Mr. CHAPMAN, Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́, Mr.

CRAMER, Mr. NCNULTY, Mr. GRANDY, Mr. OBERSTAR, Mr. DICKS, Mr.

TANNER, Mr. OXLEY, Mr. FOGLIETTA, Mr. REED, Mr. SHAYS, Mr. MARTINEZ, Mr. HUTCHINSON, Ms. NORTON, Mr. ORTON, Mr. DE LUGO, Mr.

SPRATT, Mrs. LLOYD, Mr. MCCLOSKEY, Mr. MACHTLEY, Mr.

GUTIERREZ, Mr. HASTINGS, Mr. CLAY, Mr. ABERCROMBIE, and Mr.

WATT

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently

extend the low-income housing credit.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

HR 18 SC

1 SECTION 1. PERMANENT EXTENSION OF LOW-INCOME

2 HOUSING CREDIT.

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 42 of the Internal Reve4 nue Code of 1986 (relating to low-income housing credit)

5 is amended by striking subsection (o).

6 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

7 subsection (a) shall apply to periods after June 30, 1992.

Æ
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-4003

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Southern

v. * District of Iowa.

*

Eric Daniel Anderson, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 7, 2005

Filed: December 14, 2005 

___________

Before ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Eric Daniel Anderson appeals the sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to

being a felon in possession of a firearm. Anderson argues the district court’s

imposition of a U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(4) enhancement to his sentence violated his Sixth

Amendment rights as recognized in United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005).

Because Anderson properly preserved a Booker objection and was erroneously

sentenced under a mandatory Guidelines scheme, his sentence violated Booker. See

United States v. Thomas, 422 F.3d 665, 669 (8th Cir. 2005) (district court committed

error both in basing sentence on enhancements found by court at sentencing, and in

failing to treat Guidelines as advisory). We conclude the error was not harmless,

because the government failed to show the error did not affect Anderson’s substantial
-2-

rights. See United States v. Haidley, 400 F.3d 642, 644-45 (8th Cir. 2005). Anderson

was sentenced at the bottom of the Guidelines range and we disagree with the

government contention that the district court’s statements indicate the court would

have given the same sentence under an advisory system. To the contrary, taken in

context, the court’s statements reflect an intent to be lenient within its perceived

discretion. See id. (holding not harmless district court’s error in imposing sentence

under mandatory Guidelines regime where court “made conscious decision” to

sentence defendant to bottom of Guidelines range and defendant had raised several

mitigating facts). Accordingly, we vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing.

 ______________________________