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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         450,598
<SECURITIES>                                 3,223,971
<RECEIVABLES>                                   27,747
<ALLOWANCES>                                    25,124
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,800,215
<PP&E>                                       1,484,206
<DEPRECIATION>                                 586,626
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,970,879
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          262,364
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,817
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,700,698
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,970,879
<SALES>                                         29,343
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               225,914
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,541,976
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                76,858
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,392,920)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,392,920)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,392,920)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.31)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.31)
        

</TABLE>
2009-0627.

#### DIRECTV, Inc. v. Levin.

Franklin App. No. 08AP-32, 181 Ohio App.3d 92, 2009-Ohio-636, 907 N.E.2d 1242. On motion for admission pro hac vice of Jeremy N. Kudon by Peter A. Rosato. Motion granted.
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2925 

To limit the transfer of F–35 aircraft to foreign countries. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 22, 2018 

Mr. TILLIS (for himself and Mrs. SHAHEEN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations 

A BILL 

To limit the transfer of F–35 aircraft to foreign countries. 

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

3 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON TRANSFER OF F–35 AIRCRAFT 

4 TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided under sub6 section (b), no funds may be obligated or expended— 

7 (1) to transfer, facilitate the transfer, or au8 thorize the transfer of, an F–35 aircraft to a foreign 

9 country; or 

10 (2) to transfer intellectual property or technical 

11 data necessary for, or related to, any maintenance or 

12 support of the F–35 aircraft. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2925 IS

1 (b) EXCEPTION.—The Secretary of Defense may 

2 waive the limitation under subsection (a) after submitting 

3 a written certification to Congress that the receiving coun4 try is not— 

5 (1) taking steps to degrade NATO interoper6 ability; 

7 (2) exposing NATO assets to hostile actors; 

8 (3) degrading the general security of NATO 

9 member countries; 

10 (4) seeking to import or purchase defense arti11 cles from a foreign country with respect to which 

12 sanctions are imposed by the United States; or 

13 (5) wrongfully or unlawfully detaining 1 or 

14 more United States citizens. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 44 (Tuesday, March 6, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 13522]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-5348]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2931]


S.D. Warren Company; Notice of Authorization for Continued 
Project Operation

February 28, 2001.
    On January 22, 1999, S.D. Warren Company, licensee for the Gambo 
Project No. 2931, filed an application for a new or subsequent license 
pursuant to the Federal Power Act (FPA) and the Commission's 
regulations thereunder. Project No. 2931 is located on the Presumpscot 
River in Cumberland County, Maine.
    The license for Project No. 2931 was issued for a period ending 
January 26, 2001. Section 15(a)(1) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. 808(a)(1), 
requires the Commission, at the expiration of a license term, to issue 
from year to year an annual license to the then licensee under the 
terms and conditions of the prior license until a new license is 
issued, or the project is otherwise disposed of as provided in section 
15 or any other applicable section of the FPA. If the project's prior 
license waived the applicability of section 15 of the FPA, then, based 
on section 9(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 558(c), 
as set forth at 18 CFR 16.21(a), if the licensee of such project has 
filed an application for a subsequent license, the licensee may 
continue to operate the project in accordance with the terms and 
conditions of the license after the minor or minor part license 
expires, until the Commission acts on its application. If the licensee 
of such a project has not filed an application for a subsequent 
license, then it may be required, pursuant to 18 CFR 16.21(b), to 
continue project operations until the Commission issues someone else a 
license for the project or otherwise orders disposition of the project.
    If the project is subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is 
hereby given that an annual license for Project No. 2931 is issued to 
S.D. Warren Company for a period effective January 27, 2001, through 
January 26, 2002, or until the issuance of a new license for the 
project or other disposition under the FPA, whichever comes first. If 
issuance of a new license (or other disposition) does not take place on 
or before January 27, 2002, notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 18 
CFR 16.18(c), an annual license under section 15(a)(12) of the FPA is 
renewed automatically without further order or notice by the 
Commission, unless the Commission orders otherwise.
    If the project is not subject to seciton 15 of the FPA, notice is 
hereby given that S.D. Warren Company is authorized to continue 
operation of the Gambo Project No. 2931 until such time as the 
Commission acts on its application for subsequent license.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-5348 Filed 3-5-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 45 (Wednesday, March 7, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 13825]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-5554]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 3595]


Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``A Breeze from the Gardens of Persia: New Art from 
Iran''

AGENCY: United States Department of State.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
[79 Stat. 985, 22 U.S.C. 2459], the Foreign Affairs Reform and 
Restructuring Act of 1998 [112 Stat. 2681 et seq.], Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999 [64 FR 56014], and Delegation of 
Authority No. 236 of October 19, 1999 [64 FR 57920], as amended, I 
hereby determine that the objects to be included in the exhibit, ``A 
Breeze from the Gardens of Persia: New Art from Iran,'' imported from 
abroad for the temporary exhibition without profit within the United 
States, are of cultural significance. These objects will be imported 
pursuant to loan agreements with foreign lenders. I also determine that 
the temporary exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the 
Meridian International Center, Washington, DC, from on or about April 
26, 2001, to on or about July 14, 2001; Queens Library Gallery, 
Jamaica, NY, from on or about September 7, 2001, to on or about 
November 9, 2001; ArtCentre of Plano, Plano, TX, from on or about 
November 19, 2001, to on or about January 11, 2002, and at other U.S. 
venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. The 
exhibition is expected to end by August 31, 2003. Public Notice of 
these determinations is ordered to be published in the Federal 
Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of exhibit objects, contact Julianne Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202/
619-6529). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th 
Street, SW, Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001.

    Dated: March 1, 2001.
Helena Kane Finn,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, U.S. 
Department of State.
[FR Doc. 01-5554 Filed 3-6-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-08-P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Calvin WEDINGTON, Appellant.

No. 10-2431.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 27, 2011.

Filed: Feb. 8, 2011.

*970Lonnie Frank Bryan, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Minneapolis, MN, for Appellee.

Katherine M. Menendez, Assistant, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Minneapolis, MN, for Appellant.

Calvin Scott Wedington, Rochester, MN, pro se.

Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Federal prisoner Calvin Wedington is serving a life sentenced imposed in 1982 after he pleaded guilty to second-degree murder. He has been confined at the Federal Medical Center in Rochester, Minnesota (FMC Rochester) since 2005, pursuant to a commitment order under 18 U.S.C. § 4245, which provides for the hospitalization of an imprisoned person suffering from a mental disease or defect, until he no longer needs treatment or his prison sentence expires, whichever occurs first. He appeals the district court’s1 order denying his request under 18 U.S.C. § 4247(h) to be discharged from his commitment, on the ground that he no longer needed treatment.

Following careful review, we conclude that the district court’s finding that Wedington was in need of ongoing commitment for mental-health treatment was supported by a preponderance of the evidence and not clearly erroneous. *See*18 U.S.C. § 4245(d) (determination of mental illness and treatment need, and burden of proof); 18 U.S.C. § 4247(h) (providing for motion for hearing to determine whether person confined under § 4245, inter alia, should be discharged); *United States v. Bean,*373 F.3d 877, 879 (8th Cir.2004) (standard of review of § 4245 order); *United States v. Frierson,*208 F.3d 282, 283 (1st Cir.2000) (commitment under § 4245 continues until earlier of expiration of sentence, determination by director of medical facility that prisoner is no longer in need of hospitalization, or determination by court by preponderance of evidence after hearing upon motion by counsel for committed person that he should be discharged). Notwithstanding Wedington’s denial of mental illness, his exemplary behavior while medicated, and his concern about the side effects of his medication, the district court’s finding was supported by Wedington’s history of declining mental health upon stopping his antipsychotic medication, his lack of insight into his mental illness, his plan to stop taking his antipsychotic medication, and the testimony of the FMC Rochester chief of psychology that Wedington’s life would be endangered if he discontinued his antipsychotic medication, in part because of the resulting risk that he would stop taking medication for his medical conditions.

Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Susan Richard Nelson, then a United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota, now United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 17

- 1384

_____________________________
L ARKAVEE M ORROW , Appellant,

v.

S TATE O F F LORIDA , Appellee.

___________________________ On appeal from the Circuit Court for Col umbia County

. Leandra G. Johnson, Judge

. January 19, 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. B.L. T HOMAS , C.J.
, and W ETHERELL and W INSOR , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App . P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________ Andy Thomas, Public Defender, A. Victoria Wiggins, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee
, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mark Edward GRAPES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-7612.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 13, 2011.

Decided: Jan. 21, 2011.

Mark Edward Grapes, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Oliver Mucklow, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia; Michael Stein, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Mark Edward Grapes pled guilty to one count of distribution of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(b)(1)(C) (West 2006 & Supp.2010), and one count of using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) (2006). The district court sentenced Grapes in Oc*767tober 2006 to eighty-seven months’ imprisonment on the methamphetamine count and a consecutive term of sixty months’ imprisonment on the firearm count, for a total term of 147 months’ imprisonment. In October 2010, Grapes filed a motion, styled as a Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion, in which he requested that the district court amend the judgment of conviction and order that the two imprisonment terms run concurrently to one another. The district court denied the motion, and Grapes appeals.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide a vehicle by which Grapes may challenge his criminal judgment. *See United States v. O’Keefe,*169 F.3d 281, 289 (5th Cir.1999) (stating that a criminal defendant cannot challenge orders entered in his criminal case using Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)); *United States v. Mosavi,*138 F.3d 1365, 1366 (11th Cir.1998) (per curiam) (holding that a defendant cannot challenge criminal forfeiture orders under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure). Nor could Grapes have properly sought reconsideration under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. *See United States v. Goodwyn,*596 F.3d 233, 235 (4th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 3530, 177 L.Ed.2d 1110 (2010) (holding that Fed.R.Crim.P. 35 authorizes reconsideration within fourteen days only to correct arithmetical, technical, or other clear error).

We therefore affirm the district court’s order. 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.*
#### Hughley, Appellant, *v.*Saunders, Warden, Appellee.

[Cite as *Hughley v. Saunders,*123 Ohio St.3d 446, 2009-Ohio-5585.]

(No. 2009-1228

Submitted October 20, 2009

Decided October 28, 2009.)

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals denying the petition of appellant, Kevin Hughley, for a writ of habeas corpus. Hughley had an adequate *447remedy by appeal to raise any error by the trial court in calculating his jail-time credit. *State ex rel. Rudolph v. Horton,*119 Ohio St.3d 350, 2008-Ohio-4476, 894 N.E.2d 49, ¶ 3. Moreover, because he attacks only one of his sentences, he is not entitled to the writ. “ ‘Where a petitioner is incarcerated for several crimes, the fact that the sentencing court may have lacked jurisdiction to sentence him on one of the crimes does not warrant his release in habeas corpus.’ ” *Keith v. Bobby,*117 Ohio St.3d 470, 2008-Ohio-1443, 884 N.E.2d 1067, ¶ 13, quoting *Swiger v. Seidner*(1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 685, 687, 660 N.E.2d 1214.

Kevin Hughley, pro se.

Richard Cordray, Attorney General, and M. Scott Criss, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., and Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur.

Pfeifer, J., concurs in judgment only.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001026671
<NAME>                        CCA Companies Incorporated
<MULTIPLIER>                                  1
<CURRENCY>                                    U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                  JUL-1-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1.000
<CASH>                                           5,273,048
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 6,010,340
<PP&E>                                             200,454
<DEPRECIATION>                                      10,347
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  31,060,797
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              601,144
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            11,988
<OTHER-SE>                                      30,447,665
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    31,060,797
<SALES>                                            186,494
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   186,494
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,000,660
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  74,678
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (4,641,008)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      0
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (4,641,008)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         (.51)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (.51)
        


</TABLE>
2008-2502.

#### State v. Bodyke.

Huron App. Nos. H-07-040, H-07-041, and H-07-042, 2008-Ohio-6387. On motion for admission pro hac vice of David M. Lieberman by Alexandra T. Schimmer. Motion granted.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED April 12, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-51167 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus IVAN MARTINEZ-DELCID, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:04-CR-844-ALL

-------------------- Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Ivan MartinezDelcid raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Michael and Theresa 

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 26, 2015

No. 04-15-00021-CV

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO,

Appellant

v.

Michael and Theresa HAYES,

Appellees

From the County Court At Law No. 10, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014CV00284

Honorable David J. Rodriguez, Judge Presiding

ORDER

On February 24, 2015, the trial court clerk filed a Notification of Late Record stating the 

clerk=s record was not filed because appellant failed to pay or make arrangements to pay the 

clerk=s fee for preparing the record, and appellant was not entitled to appeal without paying the 

fee. 

It is therefore ORDERED appellant provide written proof to this court within ten (10) 

days of the date of this order either (1) the clerk=s fee has been paid or arrangements have been 

made to pay the clerk=s fee; or (2) appellant is entitled to appeal without paying the clerk=s fee. If 

appellant fails to respond within the time provided, this appeal will be dismissed for want of 

prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b).

_________________________________

Jason Pulliam, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 26th day of February, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### MEG Holdings, LLC, Respondent, v Sapphire Power Finance LLC, Appellant, et al., Nominal Defendant.

[3 NYS3d 598]

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Saliann Scarpulla, J.), entered August 6, 2014, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granting plaintiff summary judgment on its claim for the release of escrow funds, and dismissing defendant Sapphire Power Finance LLC’s counterclaims for indemnification and breach of warranty, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The indemnification clause in the purchase and sale agree*609ment (PSA) between plaintiff and defendant Sapphire Power Finance LLC does not reflect an “unmistakably clear” intent to indemnify interparty claims *(see Hooper Assoc. v AGS Computers,*74 NY2d 487, 492 [1989]; *Gotham Partners, L.P. v High Riv. Ltd. Partnership,*76 AD3d 203 [1st Dept 2010], *lv denied*17 NY3d 713 [2011]).

The counterclaim for breach of warranty is barred by the waiver of remedies clause in the PSA which limits the parties’ remedies to indemnification (except for fraud and intentional misrepresentation), specific performance, and other injunctive or equitable relief *(see Devash LLC v German Am. Capital Corp.,*104 AD3d 71, 77 [1st Dept 2013], *lv denied*21 NY3d 863 [2013]).

Concur — Tom, J.P., Renwick, DeGrasse, ManzanetDaniels and Clark, JJ.