alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM STATEMENTS
OF NET ASSETS; STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND CHANGES IN NET ASSETS AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000829114
<NAME> PRUCO LIFE OF NEW JERSEY VAR CONTRACT REAL PROPERTY ACCOUNT
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,290,444
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,290,444
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,290,444
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                75,627
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,862
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 21,332
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             21,332
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    21,332
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
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 Quarterly Report of Weingarten Realty Investors (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Stephen C. Richter, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 1.  The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 2.  The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 
 BY:
              /s/
      Stephen C. RichterStephen
      C. RichterExecutive
      Vice President/Chief Financial OfficerNovember
      7, 2008
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997, AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        48,780
<OTHER-SE>                                     (48,780)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00


</TABLE>
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 17-2968

___________________________

Samuel Lewis Taylor

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

Troy Steele

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant

Michael Miller; Kevin Culton

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees

Carl Gravett

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant

Clive Hedrick

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee

Eric Dunn

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant

John Schneedle; Jason Crawford

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees

____________
Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis

____________

 Submitted: July 5, 2018

Filed: July 10, 2018

[Unpublished]

____________

Before WOLLMAN, BENTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action brought by Missouri Department ofCorrections

inmate Samuel Taylor against Potosi Correctional Center staff, Taylor appeals

following the district court’s adverse grant of summary judgment on his retaliation 1

claims. Following careful de novo review, we agree with the district court that there

is insufficient support in the record for Taylor’s contention that defendants’ actions

were motivated by retaliation. See Lewis v. Jacks, 486 F.3d 1025, 1028-29 (8th Cir.

2007). We also conclude that support is lacking for Taylor’s claims involving a

conspiracy, denial of court access, or any other constitutional deprivation to the

extent alleged against the appellees; and that the district court did not abuse its

discretion with regard to ruling on motions to compel and to strike. The judgment is

affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

The Honorable Jean C. Hamilton, United States DistrictJudge for the Eastern 1

District of Missouri.

-2-
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### APPEAL 

### O F 

### F LORIDA 

### S ECOND 

### D ISTRICT DALE WASHINGTON, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. 2D23-1205 December 20, 2023 Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Michael F. Andrews, Judge. Dale Washington, pro se. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. KELLY, BLACK, and SMITH, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-19-0000434

29-OCT-2019

08:11 AM
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

Progressive Gaming International Corporation 

Las Vegas, Nevada 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference inthe Prospectus constituting a part of the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File Nos. 33-73506, 333-07441, 333-30525, 333-30605, 333-120327 and 333-143663) and on Form S-3 (File Nos. 333-69450, 333-110623 and 333-146058) of Progressive GamingInternational Corporation of our report dated March 28, 2006 relating to the consolidated financial statements of Progressive Gaming International Corporation as of December 31, 2005 and for each of the two years in the period ended December 31,2005, which appears in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2006. 

/s/ BDO Seidman, LLP 

Los Angeles, California 

October 15, 2007
Form 8810

Department of the Treasury 

Internal Revenue Service

Corporate Passive Activity Loss and Credit Limitations

▶ Attach to your tax return (personal service and closely held corporations only).

▶ Go to www.irs.gov/Form8810 for instructions and the latest information. 

OMB No. 1545-0123

2019

Name Employer identification number

Part I 2019 Passive Activity Loss

Caution: See the instructions and complete Worksheets 1 and 2 before completing Part I.

1a Current year income (from Worksheet 2, column (a)) . . 1a

b Current year deductions and losses (from Worksheet 2, 

column (b)) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1b ( )

c Prior year unallowed losses (from Worksheet 2, column (c)) 1c ( )

d Combine lines 1a, 1b, and 1c. If the result is net income or zero, see instructions . 1d

2 Closely held corporations enter net active income and see instructions. Personal 

service corporations enter -0- on this line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 

3 Unallowed passive activity deductions and losses. Combine lines 1d and 2. If the

result is net income or zero, see the instructions for lines 1d and 3. Otherwise, go to

line 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 

4 Total deductions and losses allowed. Add the income, if any, on lines 1a and 2 and 

enter the result (see instructions) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 

Part II 2019 Passive Activity Credits

Caution: See the instructions and complete Worksheet 5 before completing Part II.

5a Current year credits (from Worksheet 5, column (a)) . . 5a

b Prior year unallowed credits (from Worksheet 5, column (b)) 5b

6 Add lines 5a and 5b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 

7 Enter the tax attributable to net passive income and net active income. See instructions 7 

8 Unallowed passive activity credit. Subtract line 7 from line 6. If the result is zero or 

less, enter -0- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 

9 Allowed passive activity credit. Subtract line 8 from line 6. See instructions . . . 9 

Part III Election To Increase Basis of Credit Property

10 If the corporation disposed of its entire interest in a passive activity or former passive activity in a fully 

taxable transaction, and the corporation elects to increase the basis of credit property used in that activity 

by the unallowed credit that reduced the property’s basis, check this box. See instructions . . . . . ▶

11 Name of passive activity disposed of ▶

12 Description of the credit property for which the election is being made ▶

13 Amount of unallowed credit that reduced the property’s basis . . . . . . ▶ $

For Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see separate instructions. Cat. No. 10356T Form 8810 (2019)
942 A.2d 893

#### Rudis MOREIRA, Petitioner v. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY, Respondent.

No. 170 EM 2007.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Feb. 13, 2008.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 13th day of February, 2008, the Application for Leave to File Original Process is granted. The Petition for Writ of Mandamus and/or Extraordinary Relief is denied without prejudice to file a request for expedited disposition of the pending motions with the Philadelphia County Common Pleas Court.
Employer’s Annual Information Return of OMB No. 1545-0714

Tip Income and Allocated Tips Form 8027

Department of the Treasury

Internal Revenue Service

For Privacy Act and Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see page 6 of the separate instructions.

Type of establishment (check

only one box) Name of establishment

1 Evening meals only

Evening and other

meals

Number and street (see instructions) Employer identification number 2

Meals other than

evening meals

City or town, state, and ZIP code 3

4 Alcoholic beverages

Establishment number

(see instructions)

Employer’s name (same name as on Form 941)

Number and street (P.O. box, if applicable)

City, state, and ZIP code (if a foreign address, see instructions)

Does this establishment accept credit Check if: Amended Return

cards, debit cards, or other charges?

1 Total charged tips for calendar year 2006 1

2 Total charge receipts showing charged tips (see instructions) 2

3 Total amount of service charges of less than 10% paid as wages to employees 3

4a Total tips reported by indirectly tipped employees 4a

b Total tips reported by directly tipped employees 4b

c Total tips reported (add lines 4a and 4b) 4c

5 Gross receipts from food or beverage operations (not less than line 2—see instructions) 5

6

6 Multiply line 5 by 8% (.08) or the lower rate shown here © granted by the IRS.

(Attach a copy of the IRS determination letter to this return.) 

7 Allocation of tips. If line 6 is more than line 4c, enter the excess here 7

© This amount must be allocated as tips to tipped employees working in this establishment.

Check the box below that shows the method used for the allocation. (Show the portion, if

any, attributable to each employee in box 8 of the employee’s Form W-2.)

a Allocation based on hours-worked method (see instructions for restriction)

b Allocation based on gross receipts method

c Allocation based on good-faith agreement (Attach a copy of the agreement.)

Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have examined this return, including accompanying schedules and statements, and to the best of my knowledge and belief,

it is true, correct, and complete.

Signature © Title © Date ©

Cat. No. 49989U Form 8027 (2006)

Note. If you marked the checkbox in line 7a, enter the average number of employee hours

worked per business day during the payroll period. (see instructions)

Apt. or suite no.

Note. If you have allocated tips using other than the calendar year (semimonthly, biweekly, 

quarterly, etc.), mark an “X” on line 6 and enter the amount of allocated tips from your

records on line 7.

8 Enter the total number of directly tipped employees at this establishment during 2006 ©

Note. Complete the Employer’s Optional Worksheet for Tipped Employees on page 6

of the instructions to determine potential unreported tips of your employees.

© See separate instructions.

Yes (lines 1 and 2 must be completed)

No Final Return

2006

Attributed Tip Income Program (ATIP). See Revenue Procedure 2006-30 ©
*Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-10493

(Summary Calendar)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

PATRICK BERWICK,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

(3:94-CR-204-D)

February 26, 2996

Before JOLLY, JONES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Patrick Berwick entered a conditional guilty plea to one count of possession with intent to

deliver more than 500 grams of cocaine. Pursuant to his plea agreement, Berwick now appeals the

district court’s denial of his motion to suppress. Berwick also argues that the presentence report

incorrectly calculated the base offense level.

We have reviewed the record, the district court’s opinion, and the briefs; and we perceive no

reversible error. Accordingly we affirm the district court’s denial of Berwick’s motion to suppress.

Berwick’s conviction and sentence are
2

AFFIRMED.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-50816

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ANGELA MARIE CUELLAR, also known as Angela Cuellar,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 6:10-CR-288-1

Before BENAVIDES, HAYNES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Angela Marie Cuellar was convicted of one count of conspiracy to commit

identity theft, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028(f), and four counts of aggravated

identity theft, violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1). The district court imposed

a 24-month imprisonment term for her conspiracy conviction and consecutive

24-month imprisonment terms for each of her convictions for aggravated identity

theft, resulting in a total of 10 years of imprisonment.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 24, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* 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.

 Case: 11-50816 Document: 00512218656 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/24/2013
No. 11-50816

Cuellar argues that the district court abused its discretion in ordering the

imprisonment terms for her aggravated identity theft convictions to run

consecutively to each other. The district court had the discretion to determine

whether those imprisonment terms would be served concurrently or

consecutively. See § 1028A(b)(4). In light of the evidence regarding the

extensiveness of Cuellar’s criminal conduct, the district court did not abuse its

discretion. See § 1028A(b)(4); U.S.S.G. § 5G1.2, comment. (n.2(B)).

According to Cuellar, the district court also failed to adequately provide

reasons for its decision to impose the consecutive sentences. Because she did not

object on this ground in the district court, plain error review applies. See United

States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 361 (5th Cir. 2009). Cuellar has

not shown any clear or obvious error regarding the adequacy of the district

court’s reasons.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 11-50816 Document: 00512218656 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/24/2013
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

ALVARO MEJIA,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 13-50450

 D. C. 2:06-cr-00243-SJO-1

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

S. James Otero, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 25, 2014** 

Pasadena, California

Before: O’SCANNLAIN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and RAKOFF,

Senior District Judge.***

FILED

SEP 04 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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without

oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

 *** The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, Senior District Judge for the U.S. District

Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

 
Defendant-Appellant Alvaro Mejia appeals from the District Court’s

judgment revoking his supervised release and imposing a 30-month sentence of

imprisonment. Because Mejia has withdrawn his challenge to the District Court’s

finding that he violated the terms and conditions of his supervised release, the only

issue that remains is his sentence. Mejia contends, and the government concedes,

that the District Court incorrectly calculated his state law offenses as Grade A

violations under Section 7B1.1(a) of the advisory United States Sentencing

Guidelines (“Guidelines”), when in fact they were Grade B violations. The parties

concur that this plain error resulted in a Guidelines range of 24 to 30 months,

rather than the correct range of 12 to 18 months. We agree.1

Accordingly, we VACATE the sentence and REMAND this matter to the

District Court for resentencing. 

1

 Because we remand for resentencing based on the Guidelines error, we do

not address Mejia’s challenge to the reasonableness of his sentence.

-2-
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Special Emphasis Panel.                    

*Date:*                         April 16, 2001.                    

*Time:*                         8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Double Tree Hotel, 1750 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20853.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Tracy A. Shahan, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, National Institutes of Health/NIAMS, Natcher Bldg., Room 5AS25H, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 594-4952.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.846, Arthritis, Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: February 8, 2001.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 01-3818  Filed 2-14-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 22-0691

_________________

CLAIMANT: State of Montana Board

of Land Commissioners,

 Appellee,

OBJECTOR: Christene E. Wagner

 Appellant,

COUNTEROBJECTORS: Chad J. 

Armstrong; Trista L. Armstrong.

O R D E R

_________________

Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for 

submission on briefs to a five-justice panel of this Court. 

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of record and to the 

Honorable Russ McElyea, Chief Water Judge.

For the Court,

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 9 2023

08/09/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0691