alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
September 29, 1998


           AIS FUTURES MANAGEMENT
           375 Park Ave
           Suite 3403
           New York, New York 10152

           Re:    Smith Barney Diversified Futures Fund L.P.

           Dear Mr. Stern:

           Per our conversation,  please liquidate AIS's positions in an orderly
           fashion by the close of business on Wednesday, September 30 for the
           following account:

               Smith Barney Diversified Futures Fund L.P. - Acct. # 258-43045

           If you have any questions, please call me at 212- 723-5416.  Thanks.

           Very truly yours,

           SMITH BARNEY FUTURES MANAGEMENT INC.



           Daniel A. Dantuono
           Chief Financial Officer & Director


           DAD/sr
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



### December 18, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice



### 136951 Michael F. Cavanag h Elizabeth A. Weave r Marilyn Kell y Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. 

### PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, 

### Plaintiff-Appellee, J ustices



### v SC: 136951 COA: 284764 Wayne CC: 87-001671-FY DANIEL LEROY SANDERS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 5, 2008 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

K ELLY


### , J., would grant leave to appeal.

p1211 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 18, 2008

Clerk
J-A15035-21

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

VINCULUM, INC 

Appellant

v.

GOLI TECHNOLOGIES, LLC

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 2048 EDA 2020

Appeal from the Judgment Entered September 22, 2020

In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Civil Division at No(s): 

No. 2015-06333

VINCULUM, INC

v.

GOLI TECHNOLOGIES, LLC 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 2127 EDA 2020

Appeal from the Judgment Entered September 22, 2020

In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Civil Division at No(s): 

No. 2015-06333

BEFORE: BOWES, J., STABILE, J., and MUSMANNO, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY BOWES, J.: FILED APRIL 11, 2024

This appeal comes to us on remand from our Supreme Court. See

Vinculum, Inc. v. Goli Techs., LLC, 310 A.3d 231 (Pa. 2024). While the 

Court agreed with our decision as to another issue for which it granted review, 

it reversed the majority decision of this Court as to the trial court’s failure to 
J-A15035-21

- 2 -

award attorney fees to Vinculum pursuant to the parties’ contract.1 Id. (Slip 

Op. at 36-37). In pertinent part, our High Court directed as follows:

We reverse the Superior Court’s decision affirming the trial 

court’s denial of attorney fees and remand to the Superior Court 

with instructions to vacate the trial court’s judgment and remand 

to the trial court for the trial court to hold a hearing solely on the 

issue of attorney fees. At the hearing, the trial court should 

provide Vinculum with the opportunity to introduce evidence of 

the attorney fees that it incurred as a consequence of Goli LLC’s 

breach of the Consulting Agreement. If the evidence is properly 

admitted over any objections that Goli LLC may make, the trial 

court may consider the reasonableness of the attorney fees in light 

of the specific facts of the case and render some award in 

Vinculum’s favor.

Id. 

Accordingly, we hereby vacate the September 22, 2020 judgment and 

remand for the trial court to conduct a hearing on the issue of attorney fees 

in a manner consistent with our Supreme Court’s instructions.

Judgment vacated. Case remanded with instructions. Jurisdiction 

relinquished.

Judge Musmanno did not participate in the post-remand consideration 

or decision of this case.

____________________________________________

1 See Vinculum, Inc. v. Goli Techs., LLC, 268 A.3d 456, 2021 WL 5575829, 

at *5 (Pa.Super. 2021) (non-precedential decision) (affirming, inter alia, the 

trial court’s decision not to award attorney fees). But see id. at *11-14 

(Bowes, J., dissenting) (opining that the parties’ contract entitled Vinculum to 

reasonable attorney fees).
J-A15035-21

- 3 -

Date: 4/11/2024
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-14-0000908

15-DEC-2016

01:56 PM
Opinion filed October 6, 2016

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

____________

No. 11-16-00268-CR

____________

RUDY TREVINO, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 385th District Court

Midland County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CR47017

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant pleaded not guilty to the offense of retaliation. The jury found him

guilty, and the trial court assessed his punishment at confinement for a term of three

years in accordance with the terms of an agreement as to punishment. We dismiss 

the appeal. 

This court notified Appellant that we had received information from the trial 

court that Appellant had waived his right of appeal in this cause. We requested that 

Appellant respond and show grounds to continue the appeal. Appellant’s counsel
2

has filed a response in which he states that he can find no grounds upon which to 

continue this appeal. He also indicates that he can find nothing to indicate that 

Appellant signed the waiver involuntarily or unknowingly.

The documents on file in this court reflect that Appellant waived various 

rights, including his right to appeal. These waivers were signed by Appellant, his

attorney, and the trial judge. Among the waivers is a “WAIVER OF RIGHT TO

APPEAL” in which Appellant affirmatively, “voluntarily, knowingly and 

intelligently WAIVE[D] AND G[A]VE UP [HIS] RIGHT TO APPEAL.” The

documents therefore show that Appellant waived his right to appeal. Texas has 

“long held that a valid waiver of appeal prevents a defendant from appealing without 

the trial court’s consent.” Monreal v. State, 99 S.W.3d 615, 617 (Tex. Crim. App.

2003). A waiver of the right to appeal is valid if it was made voluntarily, knowingly, 

and intelligently. Id. We note also that the trial court has not given Appellant 

permission to appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal without further action. 

See id. at 622–23; see also TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d).

This appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM

October 6, 2016

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). 

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM 1997 SECOND
QUARTER 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRELY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           3,109
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 4,250
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      8,916
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           8,512
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             8,681
<LOANS>                                         54,008
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,037
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  81,012
<DEPOSITS>                                      66,239
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              1,172
<LONG-TERM>                                      3,824
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,487
<OTHER-SE>                                       8,290
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  81,012
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  2,341
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  614
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 2,955
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               1,151
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,233
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            1,722
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   5
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  1,157
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    824
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         824
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       592
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.99
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.08
<LOANS-NON>                                        224
<LOANS-PAST>                                        61
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                    52
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,020
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        8
<RECOVERIES>                                        25
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,037
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               169
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            868
        

</TABLE>
H. R. 2266

One Hundred Third Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the twenty-fifth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-four

An Act

For the relief of Orlando Wayne Naraysingh.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. IMMEDIATE RELATIVE STATUS FOR ORLANDO WAYNE

NARAYSINGH.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Orlando Wayne Naraysingh shall be classified

as a child under section 101(b)(1)(E) of the Immigration and

Nationality Act for purposes of approval of a relative visa petition

filed under section 204 of such Act by his adoptive parent and

the filing of an application for an immigrant visa or adjustment

of status.

(b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—If Orlando Wayne Naraysingh

enters the United States before the filing deadline specified in

subsection (c), he shall be considered to have entered and remained

lawfully and shall, if otherwise eligible, be eligible for adjustment

of status under section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality

Act as of the date of the enactment of this Act.

(c) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF FEES.—Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the petition and the application for issuance of an immigrant visa or the application for adjustment of status are filed with appropriate fees within 2 years after

the date of the enactment of this Act.

(d) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBER.—Upon the granting of an immigrant visa or permanent residence to Orlando Wayne

Naraysingh, the Secretary of State shall instruct the proper officer

to reduce by 1, for the current or next following fiscal year, the

worldwide level of family-sponsored immigrants under section

201(c)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

(e) DENIAL OF PREFERENTIAL IMMIGRATION TREATMENT FOR

CERTAIN RELATIVES.—The natural parents, brothers, and sisters

of Orlando Wayne Naraysingh shall not, by virtue of such relation-
H. R. 2266—2

ship, be accorded any right, privilege, or status under the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
Exhibit
23.1




Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





The Board
of Directors


Strategic
Diagnostics Inc.:





We
consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos.
333-68484 and 333-118297) on Form S-8 of Strategic Diagnostics Inc. of our
report dated March 31, 2008, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of
Strategic Diagnostics Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2007 and 2006,
and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity and
comprehensive income and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year
period ended December 31, 2007, which report appears in the December 31, 2007
annual report on Form 10-K of Strategic Diagnostics Inc.





Our
report refers to the adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No.
123 (revised), “Share-Based Payment” effective January 1, 2006, and
Financial Accounting Standards Board Interpretation No. 48, Accounting for
Uncertainty in Income Taxes – an Interpretation of SFAS No. 109, effective
January 1, 2007.





/s/ KPMG
LLP





Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania


March 31,
2008
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES ATTORNEYS FOR AMICUS CURIAE

Donald J. Tribbett Dale W. Arnett Indiana Regional Sewer District Association

Tribbett Law Office Winchester, Indiana Anne H. Poindexter

Logansport, Indiana Stephenie K. Gookins

Campbell Kyle Proffitt LLP

Carmel, Indiana

____________________________________________________________________________

In the

Indiana Supreme Court 

_________________________________

No. 08S02-1402-MI-78

IN RE: THE CARROLL COUNTY 2012 TAX SALE

_________________________________

TWIN LAKES REGIONAL SEWER DISTRICT, Appellant (Intervenor Below),

v.

STEVEN E. HRUSKA,

VIRGINIA HANNA, Appellees (Petitioners below)

EQUITY TRUST COMPANY FBO #80677,

1 (Petitioner below),

AND

CARROLL COUNTY, INDIANA, BY AND THROUGH

THE CARROLL COUNTY AUDITOR Appellee (Respondent below).

_________________________________

Appeal from the Carroll Circuit Court, No. 08C01-1208-MI-15

The Honorable Benjamin A. Diener, Judge 

_________________________________

On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 08A02-1303-MI-220

_________________________________

December 4, 2014

Dickson, Justice.

 1 Equity Trust Company FBO #80677, was listed as a party by the Appellant District, but has not 

participated in this appeal. As noted by the Court of Appeals, these proceedings as to Equity Trust Company were procedurally different from those involving landowners Hruska and Hanna, and did not result 

in final action. Twin Lakes Regional Sewer District v. Hruska, 993 N.E.2d 635, 637–38 (Ind. Ct. App. 

2013). The last trial court entry with respect to Equity Trust ordered its hearing "continued indefinitely." 

Appellant's App'x at 3. 
2

The facts in this case parallel those of Twin Lakes v. Ray, 08S04-1402-MI-97, __ N.E.3d 

__ (Ind. 2014), which we contemporaneously issue today. In both cases, the same trial court 

granted landowners' requests to remove their properties from the list of properties subject to tax 

sale, and Twin Lakes Regional Sewer District appealed, challenging the trial court's interpretation of Indiana Code section 13-26-14-4. For the same reasons expressed today in Ray, we also 

reverse the judgment of the trial court in the present case. 

As we hold today in Ray, the lien foreclosure prohibition of Indiana Code section 

13-26-14-4, governing the collection of regional sewer district sewer liens, does not apply to collection by tax sale. Here, because the District employed the tax sale method rather than seeking 

collection of the landowners' unpaid sewer bills and penalties through foreclosure, the lien foreclosure prohibition clause does not apply. The judgment of the trial court removing the landowners' properties from the tax sale list is reversed, and this cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 

Rush, C.J., Rucker, David, and Massa, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1998
<CASH>                                      15,602,411
<SECURITIES>                                22,403,282
<RECEIVABLES>                               29,609,620
<ALLOWANCES>                                 9,449,065
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            63,671,689
<PP&E>                                       3,939,921
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,115,410
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              73,636,798
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       10,890,315
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        69,580
<OTHER-SE>                                  54,327,110
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                73,636,798
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            17,851,022
<CGS>                                        2,275,119
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               10,502,683
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               239,194
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               716,439
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (508,811)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,059,057
<INCOME-TAX>                                   749,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,070,763
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                      592,689
<NET-INCOME>                                   478,074
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.15
        

</TABLE>
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-04-00388- CR

Ro be r t C har le s Ha ywoo d, A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 147TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 20409 17, H ONO RAB LE WILF ORD F LOW ERS, JUDGE PRESI DING

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant Robert Hay

wood pleade d g uilty to habitual theft. SeeTex. P en. Code Ann. § 3 1. 03 (a ), (e )( 4) (D ) (We st Supp . 200 4- 05 ). Th e c ourt a dju dg e d him guil ty and se nte nc e d h im t o 18 0 d ay s in

a state ja il. Ap pe lla nt’ s c ourt -a

pp oin te d atto rn e y

fi le d a br ie f c on c lud ing

that th e a

pp eal is frivolous and without mer it. The brief meets the re quirements of An de rs v . Ca lif or nia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by

prese nting a

profe ssional evaluation of t h e re co rd demonstrating why there are no arguable g rounds to be adva nced. Se e als o Pe ns on v . O hio , 4 88 U. S. 7 5 ( 19 88 ); Hi gh v . S tate , 573 S.W. 2d 807 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 78 ); Cur riev . S tate , 516 S.W .2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); J ac k so n v . S tate , 4 85 S.W. 2d

55 3 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 72 ); Ga ino us v . S tate , 4 3 6 S. W. 2 d

1 3 7 ( T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 69 ). Ap pe lla nt r e c e ive d a

c op y of c ouns e l’ s b rief an d w a s a dv ise d o f h is r ig ht t o examine the appellate rec ord and to file a pro se br ief. No pr o se brief has bee n filed.2 We have r eviewe d the re cord a nd counsel’s br ief a

nd ag ree that the a

p p e a l is frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arg uably support the appe al. Counsel’s motion to wit hdrawis gr anted.

The judg ment of convic tion is affirmed.

__________________________________________ W. Kenneth L aw, Chief Justice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Patter son and Pury ear Affir med Filed: Apr il 14, 2005 Do No t Pu

bli sh
Freddie Mac 2022 California Consumer Request Metrics, EO&T Enterprise Data Office | Non-Public 1

Freddie Mac 2022 California Consumer Request Metrics

To comply with the requirements of the California Consumer Privacy Act, Cal. Civ. Code; § 7102(a) of the 

Regulations, Freddie Mac provides the following metrics related to California consumer requests 

received for calendar year 2022.

Request Type Number of Request Resolution

Total Number of California 

Consumers Submitting Requests 1

Requests to Correct 0

Requests to Delete 1 Rejected

Request to Know 0

Request to Opt-Out of Sale/Sharing 0

Request to Limit 0

Median number of days for substantive response: 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-04-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-01-1997
<CASH>                                         1178373
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   136576
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     203268
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               2117690
<PP&E>                                        10970370
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                13697442
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2455602
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         35668
<OTHER-SE>                                     9957948
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  13697442
<SALES>                                       20636760
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              20636760
<CGS>                                          7767907
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 17681393
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               1662877
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               31269
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1261221
<INCOME-TAX>                                    278240
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             982981
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    982981
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .27
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 211 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 211

 To categorize payments from lobbyists to, or on behalf of, Members of 
            Congress as bribery under Federal criminal law.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 5, 1993

  Mr. Jacobs introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To categorize payments from lobbyists to, or on behalf of, Members of 
            Congress as bribery under Federal criminal law.

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

SECTION 1. LOBBYIST PAYMENTS TO, OR ON BEHALF OF, MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 
              AS BRIBERY UNDER FEDERAL CRIMINAL LAW.

    Any payment of money or any other thing of value to, or on behalf 
of, a Senator or Representative in, or Delegate or Resident 
Commissioner to, the Congress from a professional lobbying organization 
or individual professional lobbyist for legislation shall constitute 
bribery under Federal criminal law.

                                 <all>
```