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


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Winthrop
Partners 80 Limited Partnership and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<MULTIPLIER> 1


<S>                                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                  JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                    DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                              904,000
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                             0
<ALLOWANCES>                                              0
<INVENTORY>                                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                          0
<PP&E>                                            7,919,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                    (698,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    8,136,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                     0
<BONDS>                                                   0
<COMMON>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<OTHER-SE>                                        7,685,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      8,136,000
<SALES>                                                   0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  1,207,000
<CGS>                                                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        79,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    600,000  <F1>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                        0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     481,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 481,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                        481,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          9.77
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          9.77

<FN>
<F1> Loss due to impairment of real estate



</TABLE>
### §2133. Licensing of dealers and exhibitors

The Secretary shall issue licenses to dealers and exhibitors upon application therefor in such form and manner as he may prescribe and upon payment of such fee established pursuant to 2153 of this title: Provided, That no such license shall be issued until the dealer or exhibitor shall have demonstrated that his facilities comply with the standards promulgated by the Secretary pursuant to section 2143 of this title: Provided, however, That a dealer or exhibitor shall not be required to obtain a license as a dealer or exhibitor under this chapter if the size of the business is determined by the Secretary to be de minimis. The Secretary is further authorized to license, as dealers or exhibitors, persons who do not qualify as dealers or exhibitors within the meaning of this chapter upon such persons' complying with the requirements specified above and agreeing, in writing, to comply with all the requirements of this chapter and the regulations promulgated by the Secretary hereunder.

(Pub. L. 89–544, §3, Aug. 24, 1966, 80 Stat. 351; Pub. L. 91–579, §4, Dec. 24, 1970, 84 Stat. 1561; Pub. L. 113–79, title XII, §12308(a)(2), Feb. 7, 2014, 128 Stat. 990.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2014—Pub. L. 113–79 substituted ": Provided, however, That a dealer or exhibitor shall not be required to obtain a license as a dealer or exhibitor under this chapter if the size of the business is determined by the Secretary to be de minimis." for ": Provided, however, That any retail pet store or other person who derives less than a substantial portion of his income (as determined by the Secretary) from the breeding and raising of dogs or cats on his own premises and sells any such dog or cat to a dealer or research facility shall not be required to obtain a license as a dealer or exhibitor under this chapter."

1970—Pub. L. 91–579 inserted references to exhibitors and retail pet stores.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 1970 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 91–579 effective one year after Dec. 24, 1970, see section 23 of Pub. L. 91–579, set out as a note under section 2131 of this title.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3724

___________

Johnny Paul Dodson, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Larry Norris, Director, Arkansas * Eastern District of Arkansas.

Department of Correction; Ray Hobbs, *

Assistant Director, Arkansas * [UNPUBLISHED]

Department of Correction; Gaylon Lay, *

Warden, Cummins Unit, ADC; Randall *

Manus, Assistant Warden, Cummins *

Unit, ADC; Kim Luckett, Assistant *

Warden, Cummins Unit, ADC; William *

Fowler, Treatment Coordinator, *

Cummins Unit, ADC; Angela West, *

Mailroom Supervisor, Cummins Unit, *

ADC; Melody Barnett, Inmate *

Attorney; Sue Newbery, Criminal *

Justice Coordinator, Arkansas Supreme *

Court, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: January 30, 2006

Filed: February 22, 2006

___________

Before MURPHY, HANSEN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________
1

The Honorable J. Leon Holmes, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting in part the report and recommendations of

the Honorable Henry L. Jones, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern

District of Arkansas.

-2-

PER CURIAM.

Arkansas inmate Johnny Dodson appeals the district court’s1

 dismissal of his

42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to exhaust and the court’s denial of his motion

for appointment of counsel.

We conclude that the district court did not err in dismissing Dodson’s complaint

against the prison officials for failure to exhaust, as the record does not show Dodson

filed any grievances about his claims against defendants Melody Barnett, Randall

Manus, Gaylon Lay, Ray Hobbs, and Larry Norris. See Graves v. Norris, 218 F.3d

884, 885 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (prisoner must exhaust all available

administrative remedies before § 1983 action can be brought with respect to prison

conditions; when multiple prison claims are joined, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) requires

exhaustion as to all claims). 

As for the claims against defendant Susan Newbery, in her capacity as Criminal

Justice Coordinator for the Arkansas Supreme Court, the district court properly

dismissed the claim for monetary damages with prejudice due to immunity, as

Newbery was clearly acting in her official capacity. See Morstad v. Dept. of Corrs.

and Rehab., 147 F.3d 741, 744 (8th Cir. 1998). Although Newbery was not immune

from Dodson’s requested injunctive relief, see Campbell v. Ark. Dept. of Corr., 155

F.3d 950, 962 (8th Cir. 1998), injunctive relief would be inappropriate, because

Dodson failed to show, among other things, that he was faced with a threat of

irreparable harm, see Davis v. Francis Howell Sch. Dist., 104 F.3d 204, 205-06 (8th

Cir. 1997). 
-3-

Finally, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the

motion for appointment of counsel. See Abdullah v. Gunter, 949 F.2d 1032, 1035

(8th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 504 U.S. 930 (1992). Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________
### §2009cc–14. Unlawful acts and omissions; breach of fiduciary duty

#### (a) Parties deemed to commit a violation

Whenever any rural business investment company violates this subchapter (including any rule, regulation, order, or participation agreement under this subchapter), by reason of the failure of the rural business investment company to comply with this subchapter or by reason of its engaging in any act or practice that constitutes or will constitute a violation of this subchapter, the violation shall also be deemed to be a violation and an unlawful act committed by any person that, directly or indirectly, authorizes, orders, participates in, causes, brings about, counsels, aids, or abets in the commission of any acts, practices, or transactions that constitute or will constitute, in whole or in part, the violation.

#### (b) Fiduciary duties

It shall be unlawful for any officer, director, employee, agent, or other participant in the management or conduct of the affairs of a rural business investment company to engage in any act or practice, or to omit any act or practice, in breach of the fiduciary duty of the officer, director, employee, agent, or participant if, as a result of the act or practice, the rural business investment company suffers or is in imminent danger of suffering financial loss or other damage.

#### (c) Unlawful acts

Except with the written consent of the Secretary, it shall be unlawful—

(1) for any person to take office as an officer, director, or employee of any rural business investment company, or to become an agent or participant in the conduct of the affairs or management of a rural business investment company, if the person—

(A) has been convicted of a felony, or any other criminal offense involving dishonesty or breach of trust; or

(B) has been found liable in a civil action for damages, or has been permanently or temporarily enjoined by an order, judgment, or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction, by reason of any act or practice involving fraud or breach of trust; and

(2) for any person to continue to serve in any of the capacities described in paragraph (1), if—

(A) the person is convicted of a felony or any other criminal offense involving dishonesty or breach of trust; or

(B) the person is found liable in a civil action for damages, or is permanently or temporarily enjoined by an order, judgment, or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction, by reason of any act or practice involving fraud or breach of trust.

(Pub. L. 87–128, title III, §384O, as added Pub. L. 107–171, title VI, §6029, May 13, 2002, 116 Stat. 400.)
Order filed November 19, 2015.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-15-00398-CR

NO. 14-15-00399-CR

NO. 14-15-00400-CR

____________

SANDRA F. BERRY, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 185th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1462961

ORDER

Appellant is represented by appointed counsel, Randall J. Ayers. Appellant’s 

brief was originally due July 20, 2015. We have granted a total of 105 days to file 

appellant’s brief until November 2, 2015. When we granted the last extension, we 

noted that no further extensions would be granted absent exceptional 

circumstances. No brief was filed. We notified the parties on November 4, 2015, 
that if appellant did not file a motion for extension of time to file the brief within 

10 days, the court would take appropriate action. On November 16, 2015, counsel 

filed a further request for extension of time to file appellant’s brief. Counsel did 

not allege any exceptional circumstances in the request. 

We deny the request for extension and issue the following order.

Accordingly, we order Randall J. Ayers to file a brief with the clerk of this 

court on or before December 1, 2015. If counsel does not timely file appellant’s 

brief as ordered, the court will issue an order abating the appeal and directing the 

trial court to conduct a hearing to determine the reason for the failure to file the 

brief and the consideration of sanctions, appointment of new counsel, or other 

appropriate relief.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Boyce, Jamison, and Busby.
Editorial Note on Part 842
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 842 appear at 81 FR 83688, Nov. 22, 2016.

§ 842.16 Definitions. ( a ) *Military installation.* A facility used to serve a military purpose and used or controlled by the Air Force or any other Department of Defense (DOD) element.
( b ) *Personal property.* Tangible property an individual owns, including but not limited to household goods, unaccompanied baggage, privately owned vehicles (POV), and mobile homes.
( c ) *Reconsideration.* The original or a higher settlement authority's review of a prior settlement action.
( d ) *Unusual Occurrence.* Something not expected to happen in the normal course of events.
[55 FR 2809, Jan. 29, 1990. Redesignated and amended at 81 FR 83688, Nov. 22, 2016]
Exhibit 32.2
                                  ------------


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Escalade, Incorporated (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending July 15, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, C. W.
(Bill) Reed, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

         (1) The Report 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 result of operations of the
Company.


/s/ TERRY D. FRANDSEN
--------------------------
Terry D. Frandsen
Chief Financial Officer
August 10, 2006

                                       20
### §2282. Definitions

When used in this chapter—

(1) the term "Secretary" means the Secretary of Agriculture of the United States;

(2) the term "Department of Agriculture" means the United States Department of Agriculture; and

(3) the term "advisory committee" means any committee, board, commission, council, conference, panel, task force, or other similar group, or any subcommittee or other subgroup thereof that is established or utilized by the Department of Agriculture in the interest of obtaining advice or recommendations for the President or the Department of Agriculture, except that such term excludes any committee which (A) is composed wholly of full-time officers or employees of the Federal Government, (B) is established by statute or reorganization plan, or (C) is established by the President.

(Pub. L. 95–113, title XVIII, §1802, Sept. 29, 1977, 91 Stat. 1041; Pub. L. 97–98, title XI, §1116(a), Dec. 22, 1981, 95 Stat. 1270.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1981—Pub. L. 97–98 reenacted section without change.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 1981 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 97–98 effective Dec. 22, 1981, see section 1801 of Pub. L. 97–98, set out as an Effective Date note under section 4301 of this title.

#### Effective Date

Section effective Oct. 1, 1977, see section 1901 of Pub. L. 95–113, set out as an Effective Date of 1977 Amendment note under section 1307 of this title.
### §926. Center of Excellence for Maritime Domain Awareness

#### (a) Establishment

The Secretary shall establish a university-based Center for Excellence for Maritime Domain Awareness following the merit-review processes and procedures that have been established by the Secretary for selecting university program centers of excellence.

#### (b) Duties

The Center established under subsection (a) shall—

(1) prioritize its activities based on the "National Plan To Improve Maritime Domain Awareness" published by the Department in October 2005;

(2) recognize the extensive previous and ongoing work and existing competence in the field of maritime domain awareness at numerous academic and research institutions, such as the Naval Postgraduate School;

(3) leverage existing knowledge and continue development of a broad base of expertise within academia and industry in maritime domain awareness; and

(4) provide educational, technical, and analytical assistance to Federal agencies with responsibilities for maritime domain awareness, including the Coast Guard, to focus on the need for interoperability, information sharing, and common information technology standards and architecture.

(Pub. L. 109–347, title I, §128, Oct. 13, 2006, 120 Stat. 1900.)
#### STATE v. LONG

No. 566P97

Case below: 127 N.CApp. 756

Petition by Attorney General for writ of supersedeas and motion for temporary stay denied 8 December 1997. Petition by Attorney General for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 8 December 1997.
INL CAPABILITY 

Facilitation and Consultation Services 

acilitation and Consultation Services (FACS) is part of the Systems Engineering 

Department at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL). The FACS group integrates the 

technical and interpersonal skills necessary to help customers make logical, traceable, 

and defensible decisions. These skills have been successfully applied to develop 

alternatives and recommended optimal courses of action for resolving a variety of operational, 

organizational, programmatic, and research challenges. The group uses highly trained and 

experienced facilitators in the application of organized, interdisciplinary approaches to solve 

problems and provide customers with reliable, quality products, processes, and services at the 

lowest possible cost. 

Facilitation and Consultation Services Core Capabilities 

► Design and conduct a broad range of meetings, including: 

– National and International Groups 

– Value Engineering 

– Problem Solving and Decision Making 

– Stakeholder Communications Collaboration 

– Electronic Decision Support 

– Project / Strategic Planning 

– Team Building 

– Road Mapping 

– Process Reengineering 

► Organizational Effectiveness Consultation, including: 

– Institutional and Strategic Planning, including “missioning-visioning” and 

alignment 

– Transition Management and Resistance Management 

– Organizational Performance (effectiveness), assessment, and monitoring 

– Process Consultation and Facilitation 

– Systems Integration 

► Identification and 

consideration of 

pertinent risks and 

issues, including 

environmental, 

programmatic, 

economic, 

stakeholder, and 

political through 

comprehensive 

decision making 

expertise using 

proven methods. 

Technical

Contacts 

Ron Klingler 

(208) 526-0183 

ron.klingler@inl.gov 

Lori Braase 

(208) 526-7763 

lori.braase@inl.gov 

Robert Caliva 

(208) 526-4653 

robert.caliva@inl.gov 

John Collins 

(208) 526-3372 

john.collins@inl.gov

Web Page 

http://www.inl.gov/syseng 

F
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

___________________________
No. 02

- 18

- 00432

- CR

___________________________

On Appeal from County Criminal Court No. 6 Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 14 53917

Before Sudderth, C.J.; Bassel and Womack , JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Bassel 

### N OLBERTA 

### L OUISE 

### V ARGAS 

### , Appellant

V



### .
T HE 

### S TATE OF 

### T EXAS2 MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Nolberta Louise Vargas appeals her conviction for Class B
misdemeanor driving while intoxicated , enhanced by one prior felony, for which she
was sentenced to 100 days in Tarrant County Jail. In a single issue, Vargas argues that
the trial court erred by denying her pretrial motion to suppress evidence of an
electronic scale discovered during a search of her purse. The State responds that the
correctness of the trial court’s pretrial ruling denying Vargas’s motion to suppress was
rendered moot when later, during the trial, the trial court sustained her hearsay
objection to the testimony relating to the scale. We agree with the State that the

record does not reflect that any testimony related to the scale was offered or admitted

at trial. We therefore overrule Vargas’s sole issue as moot and affirm the trial court’s
judgment

. See Long v. State , 525 S.W.3d 351, 368 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.]
2017, pet. ref’d) (holding that appellant’s argument challenging the trial court ’ s denial

of his motion to suppress evidence obtained during the search of his residence was

moot because none of the items seized was offered or admitted at trial ).
/ s/ Dabney Bassel
Dabney Bassel Justice

Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered: July 3, 2019
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 1851

STANLEY JONES; DEBRA JONES , Plaintiffs

- Appellants ,

v. CARRIE M. WARD; BWW LAW GROUP; NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt

. George Jarrod Hazel, District Judge. ( 8:20

- cv - 03225

- GJH )

Submitted : November 18, 2021 Decided: November 19, 2021

Before MOTZ , THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Stanley Jones , Debra Jones , Appellants Pro Se. Melissa O. Martinez, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP , Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding prec edent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Stanley and Debra Jones appeal the district court’s order dismissing their civil complaint related to a state foreclosure action. On appeal, we confine our review to the
issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir . R. 34(b). Because the Joneses ’ informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, they ha ve forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. See Jackson v. Lightsey , 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”) . Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We further deny the Joneses’ motion for abeyance. We dispense w ith oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications Proposed Rule

Public Meeting

October 29, 2013

Attendee List

1

M. Asfaw

NAHB

Susan Bodine

Barnes & Thornburg

Alan Ellsworth

National Park Service

Mark Gorman

Northeast-Midwest Institute

Susan Kirsch

Association of Clean Water Administrators

David LaRoss

Inside EPA

Theaux M. LeGardeur

Gunpowder Riverkeeper, Waterkeeper Alliance

Karlee Lichtenstein

Arnold B. Porter, LLP

Larissa Liebmann

Potomac Riverkeeper

Brenna Mannion

NACWA

Melissa McCoy

ACWA

Laura Morgan

Van Scoyoc Associates

Max Perkins

Van Scoyoc Associates

Jerry Schwartz

American Forest and Paper Association

Judy Sheahan

The U.S. Conference of Mayors

Chris Tait

Anne Arundel County Department of Public 

Works

William Telliard

Environmental Consultant
### §2009n. Repealed. Pub. L. 107–171, title VI, §6026(b), May 13, 2002, 116 Stat. 372

Section, Pub. L. 87–128, title III, §381O, as added Pub. L. 104–127, title VII, §761, Apr. 4, 1996, 110 Stat. 1147, related to rural venture capital demonstration program.
#### § 905.778 Permit application—Minimum requirements for legal, financial, compliance, and related information.

Part 778 of this chapter, *Permit Applications—Minimum Requirements for Legal, Financial, Compliance, and Related Information,* shall apply to any person who makes application for a permit to conduct surface coal mining and reclamation operations.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 23.2

               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We have issued our report dated February 12, 1999 accompanying the consolidated
financial statements of CB Bancshares, Inc. and Subsidiaries included in the
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2000. We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement of CB
Bancshares, Inc. and Subsidiaries on Form S-8 (File No. 333-81279, effective
June 22, 1999, and File No. 333-64437, effective September 28, 1998).

GRANT THORNTON LLP

Honolulu, Hawaii
March 15, 2001