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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-Q
FOR THE 3 MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                       1,007,820
<SECURITIES>                                 9,415,151
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            10,921,610
<PP&E>                                       1,932,405
<DEPRECIATION>                               (478,993)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              25,226,383
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          815,875
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      3,490
<COMMON>                                        37,384
<OTHER-SE>                                  24,351,278
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                25,226,383
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               101,786
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,531,750
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,429,964)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,429,964)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,429,964)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.07)


</TABLE>
#### § 981.43 Marking or labeling of containers.

The Board may, with the approval of the Secretary, establish regulations to require handlers to mark or label their containers that are used in packaging or handling of bulk almonds. For purposes of this section, *container* means a box, bin, bag, carton, or any other type of receptacle used in the packaging or handling of bulk almonds.

[73 FR 45156, Aug. 4, 2008]
Subpart 2419.2 - Policies    **Parent topic:** PART 2419 - SMALL BUSINESS PROGRAMS2419.201 General policy.       (d) The Director of HUD's Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU) is responsible for the administration of the HUD small business program and for performing all functions and duties prescribed in FAR 19.201(d). This includes Department-wide responsibility for developing, implementing, executing, and managing these programs; providing advice on these programs; and representing HUD before other government agencies on matters primarily affecting small, small disadvantaged, and women-owned small business; HUBZone small business; veteran-owned small business; and service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns.          (e) The Director of OSDBU shall designate small business specialists who shall advise and assist HUD's contracting activity and small business concerns as described in paragraph (d) on all matters related to small business participation in HUD acquisitions. Small business specialists shall perform the following functions:          (1) Maintain a program designed to locate capable small-business sources as referenced in paragraph (d) of this section for current and future procurements;          (2) Coordinate inquiries and requests for advice from such businesses on procurement matters;          (3) Review proposed requirements for supplies and services, ensure that all such business concerns will be afforded an equitable opportunity to compete, and, as appropriate, initiate recommendation for small business or Section 8a set-asides (under the Small Business Act);          (4) Take action to ensure the availability of adequate specifications and drawings, when necessary, to obtain participation by such businesses in a procurement;          (5) Review proposed procurements for possible breakout of items suitable for procurement from such businesses;          (6) Advise such businesses with respect to the financial assistance available under existing laws and regulations and assist such businesses in applying for financial assistance;          (7) Ensure that adequate records are maintained and accurate reports are prepared concerning such businesses participation in the procurement program;          (8) Make available to SBA copies of solicitations, when requested, and          (9) Act as liaison between the Contracting Officer and the appropriate SBA office in connection with set-asides, certificates of competency, size classification, and any other matter in which the small business program may be involved.
§ 930.57 Secondary inventory reserve. ( a ) In the event the inventory reserve established under § 930.55 of this part is at its maximum volume, and the Board has announced, in accordance with § 930.50, that volume regulation will be necessary to maintain an orderly supply of quality cherries for the market, handlers in a regulated district may elect to place in a secondary inventory reserve all or a portion of the cherries the volume regulation would otherwise require them to divert in accordance with § 930.59.
( b ) Should any handler in a regulated district exercise his or her right to establish a secondary inventory reserve under paragraph (a) of this section, all costs of maintaining that reserve, as well as inspection costs, will be the responsibility of the individual handler.
( c ) The secondary inventory reserve shall be established in accordance with §§ 930.55 (b) and (c) and such other rules and regulations which the Board, with the approval of the Secretary, may establish.
( d ) The Board shall retain control over the release of any cherries from the secondary inventory reserve. No cherries may be released from the secondary reserve until all cherries in any primary inventory reserve established under § 930.55 have been released. Any release of the secondary inventory reserve shall be in accordance with the annual marketing policy and with § 930.54.
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 20

- 10843 Summary Calendar

**Priscilla A. Ellis,**

Petitioner

— Appellant **,**

versus

**Michael Carr,** Warden , FMC

- Carswell **,**
Respondent

— Appellee

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:19

- CV

- 1065

Before **Southwick, Graves,** and **Costa,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *

Priscilla A. Ellis, federal prisoner # 03260180, moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the district court’s denial of
h er Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) motion following dismissal of her 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1);

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  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 cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED November 23, 2021
Lyle W. C ayce Clerk Case: 20-10843 Document: 00516105023 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/23/2021No. 20

- 10843

2 **Fed. R. App. P** . 24(a)

. The district court determined that Ellis was financially able to pay the filing fee, and it denied her request for leave to proceed IFP on appeal on that basis.
To proceed IFP, Ellis must demonstrate financial eligibility and the existence of a nonfrivolous issue for appeal. See Carson v. Polley , 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982). A no nfrivolous issue “involves legal points arguable
on their merits.” Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). If Ellis fails to show that her appeal will involve a nonfrivolous issue, we may deny he r IFP motion and sua sponte dismiss her appeal as frivolous. See Baugh v. Taylor , 117 F.3d 197, 202 n.24 (5th Cir. 1997); **5th Cir. R** . 42.2.
Although Ellis appeals the district court’s denial of her Rule 60(b) motion, s he has failed to brief, and has the reby abandoned, any appellate challenge to the district court’s order. See Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222,

224

- 25 (5th Cir. 1993) . Thus, Ellis has failed to raise a nonfrivolous issue for appeal. See Howard , 707 F.2d at 2 20. This appeal is therefore **DISMISSED** as frivolous, and her motions for leave to proceed IFP on appeal , for appointment of counsel , for hearing en banc, and for reconsideration of the
denial of her motion for leave to file exhibits are **DENIED**

. See **5th Cir.** 

**R**

**.** 42.2 ; see also Wardlaw v. Cain , 541 F.3d 275, 279 (5th Cir. 2008)

.
I n light of the dismissal of the instant appeal as frivolous and the two previous motions Ellis filed raising similar claims as the claims raised in the underlying § 2241 petition, Ellis is **WARNED** that the filing of frivolous, repetitive, or otherwise abusive filings will invite the imposition of sanctions, which may include dismissal, monetary sanctions, and restrictions on h er ability to file pleadings in this court and any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction. Case: 20-10843 Document: 00516105023 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/23/2021
#### Kenneth Bank, Appellant, v Marney White, Respondent.

Submitted November 19, 2007;

decided December 20, 2007

Reported below, 40 AD3d 790.

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

M IDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABA M A

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

POST OFFICE BOX 711

MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36101-0711

DEBRA P. HACKETT, CLERK

TELEPHONE (334) 954-3600

NOTICE OF CORRECTION

From: Clerk’s Office

Case Style: Mildred W. Anderson et al v. Pactiv Corporation et al 

Case Number: 2:06-cv-00739-LES

Referenced Pleading: Notice of Removal - Doc. 1

This Notice of Correction was filed in the referenced case this date to correct the PDF

documents attached to this notice. Please see the correct PDF documents to this notice.

Case 2:06-cv-00739-LES-CSC Document 10 Filed 08/21/2006 Page 1 of 1
Case 2:06-cv-00739-LES-CSC Document 10-2 Filed 08/21/2006 Page 1 of 18
Case 2:06-cv-00739-LES-CSC Document 10-2 Filed 08/21/2006 Page 2 of 18
Case 2:06-cv-00739-LES-CSC Document 10-2 Filed 08/21/2006 Page 3 of 18
Case 2:06-cv-00739-LES-CSC Document 10-2 Filed 08/21/2006 Page 4 of 18
Case 2:06-cv-00739-LES-CSC Document 10-2 Filed 08/21/2006 Page 5 of 18
Case 2:06-cv-00739-LES-CSC Document 10-2 Filed 08/21/2006 Page 6 of 18
Case 2:06-cv-00739-LES-CSC Document 10-2 Filed 08/21/2006 Page 7 of 18
Case 2:06-cv-00739-LES-CSC Document 10-2 Filed 08/21/2006 Page 8 of 18
Case 2:06-cv-00739-LES-CSC Document 10-2 Filed 08/21/2006 Page 9 of 18
Case 2:06-cv-00739-LES-CSC Document 10-2 Filed 08/21/2006 Page 10 of 18
Case 2:06-cv-00739-LES-CSC Document 10-2 Filed 08/21/2006 Page 11 of 18
Case 2:06-cv-00739-LES-CSC Document 10-2 Filed 08/21/2006 Page 12 of 18
Case 2:06-cv-00739-LES-CSC Document 10-2 Filed 08/21/2006 Page 13 of 18
Case 2:06-cv-00739-LES-CSC Document 10-2 Filed 08/21/2006 Page 14 of 18
Case 2:06-cv-00739-LES-CSC Document 10-2 Filed 08/21/2006 Page 15 of 18
Case 2:06-cv-00739-LES-CSC Document 10-2 Filed 08/21/2006 Page 16 of 18
Case 2:06-cv-00739-LES-CSC Document 10-2 Filed 08/21/2006 Page 17 of 18
Case 2:06-cv-00739-LES-CSC Document 10-2 Filed 08/21/2006 Page 18 of 18
§ 927.126 Processed pear reports. ( a ) Each handler shall furnish to the Processed Pear Committee annually on a date established by the Processed Pear Committee the “Processed Pear Assessment Report” containing the following information: ( 1 ) The name of the processor(s) or firm(s) to whom pears were sold;
( 2 ) The quantity of each variety or subvariety of pears shipped by that handler;
( 3 ) The crop year covered in the report;
( 4 ) The assessment payment due and enclosed;
( 5 ) The name and address of such handler; and
( 6 ) Other information as may be requested by the Processed Pear Committee.
( b ) Each handler shall specify on each bill of lading covering each shipment, the variety or subvariety and quantity of all pears included in that shipment.
[71 FR 7677, Feb. 14, 2006]
Case 1:06-cv-00737-WKW-SRW Document 45 Filed 02/15/2007 Page 1 of 8
Case 1:06-cv-00737-WKW-SRW Document 45 Filed 02/15/2007 Page 2 of 8
Case 1:06-cv-00737-WKW-SRW Document 45 Filed 02/15/2007 Page 3 of 8
Case 1:06-cv-00737-WKW-SRW Document 45 Filed 02/15/2007 Page 4 of 8
Case 1:06-cv-00737-WKW-SRW Document 45 Filed 02/15/2007 Page 5 of 8
Case 1:06-cv-00737-WKW-SRW Document 45 Filed 02/15/2007 Page 6 of 8
Case 1:06-cv-00737-WKW-SRW Document 45 Filed 02/15/2007 Page 7 of 8
Case 1:06-cv-00737-WKW-SRW Document 45 Filed 02/15/2007 Page 8 of 8
Annex 11 - DEFENSE COMMERCIAL

SOLUTIONS OPENING DETERMINATION &

FINDING TEMPLATE

Pursuant to 5212.290, the template below contains the required Determination & Finding format for

approval of a contract in excess of $100 million pursuant to a Commercial Solutions Opening (CSO)

authorized by Section 803 of National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2022 as

implemented in Class Deviation 2022-O0007 dated February 2, 2022.

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

1000 NAVY PENTAGON

WASHINGTON DC 20350-1000

DETERMINATION TO AWARD A CONTRACT IN EXCESS OF $100 MILLION PURSUANT TO

COMMERCIAL SOLUTIONS OPENING

In accordance with Class Deviation 2022-O0007 dated February 2, 2022, I hereby make the
following determination concerning the award of a contract in excess of $100 million pursuant to a

commercial solutions opening to meet the mission needs of the [insert name] program.

FINDINGS

1. Section 803 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022 (Pub. L.

117-81), as implemented in Class Deviation 2022-O0007 dated February 2, 2022, states that

contracting officers shall not award contracts in excess of $100 million pursuant to a commercial

solutions opening (CSO) without written approval from the Service Acquisition Executive.

2. The [insert name of contracting activity] intends to award a contract pursuant to CSO in excess of

$100 million for [identify specific item at prime contract level] under Solicitation/Contract [insert

number]. In accordance with Class Deviation 2022-O0007, the following details are provided:

3. Summarize the market research conducted and the rationale supporting a conclusion that the

requirements of the class deviation have been satisfied.

4. The contracting officer shall include an affirmative statement that the contract file documents the

market research and rationale supporting the conclusion that the requirements of the class deviation

have been satisfied.

DETERMINATION

Based on the findings above, I hereby determine that the requirements of Class Deviation 2022-

O0007 dated February 2, 2022 have been met regarding the efficacy of the effort to meet mission

needs of the Department of the Navy, therefore; [insert Contract Activity Name] is authorized to

award a contract in excess of $100 million using a CSO.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

JAMES KUCZMASKI, ADAM

PIKE, RYAN PHILLIPS, JOSH

STONE, SUHANE LOWERY,

KEVIN BELL, and HAMP CRUM,

III, individually and on behalf of

other persons similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

U.S. FOODSERVICE

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CIVIL ACTION NO.

CV-2:06-cv-731

JOINT MOTION TO STAY PENDING MEDIATION

Plaintiffs James Kuczmaski, Adam Pike, Ryan Phillips, Josh Stone,

Suhane Lowery, Kevin Bell, and Hamp Crum (“plaintiffs”) and defendant

U.S. Foodservice (“defendant”) jointly request that this court stay the

proceedings in this matter for the following reason:

1. The parties have been attempting to resolve this matter and now

believe that mediation would be beneficial in resolving the case.

2. The parties have agreed to ask Fern Singer to mediate this

matter.

Case 2:06-cv-00731-MHT-SRW Document 34 Filed 06/11/2007 Page 1 of 2
2

The parties therefore jointly move this Court to stay proceedings,

pending completion of mediation.

Submitted this 11th day of June, 2007.

s/ Gregory O. Wiggins s/ Tammy L. Baker

Gregory O. Wiggin

gwiggins@wcqp.com

Wiggins, Childs, Quinn & Pantazis

The Kress Building

301 19th Street North

Birmingham, Alabama 35203

Phone: (205) 314-0500

Fax: (205) 254-1500

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF

Tammy L. Baker

BakerT@jacksonlewis.com

JACKSON LEWIS LLP

2001Park Place North

Suite 650

Birmingham, Alabama 35203

Phone: (205) 332-3106

Fax: (205) 332-3131

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT

Case 2:06-cv-00731-MHT-SRW Document 34 Filed 06/11/2007 Page 2 of 2
Order entered August 30 , 2016

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 16
- 00682
- CV SUSAN ANN FISHER, Appellant

V. MEDICAL CENTER OF PL ANO, ET AL. , Appellee s On Appeal fro m the 296th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 296
- 01240
- 2016



### O RDER
We GRANT appellant’s August 26, 2016 motion for an extension of time to pay for the clerk’s and reporter’s records to the extent that appellant shall file , by SEPTEMBER 28, 2016 , written verification that she has paid for the records. We caution appellant that failure to pay for the reporter’s record will result in this appeal being submitted without that record; failure to pay for the clerk’s record will result in dismissal of this appeal without further warning. See T EX
. R.
A PP
. P. 37.3(b),(c), 42.3(b),(c).

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
I INIAWWHO.

9

Gute

209 e0/:1

|

oe BAR HARBOR *68 _—_

|

BATHYMETRIC CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 METERS . AIA!
WITH SUPPLEMENTARY 2 METER CONTOURS P RELIMINA! ey
DATUM 1S MEAN LOW WATER PY |

%* ROCK
LOGE OR REEF

caaaeonemocemanges — SUBIELT TO REI
Ss
2814.407-4 Mistakes after award.       The authority to make determinations under FAR 14.407-4 is delegated to the HCA. The HCA may re-delegate this authority at a level at or above the chief of the contracting office. The determination must be coordinated with the contracting activity's legal counsel.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 2814.4 - Opening of Bids and Award of Contract
U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             Washington, D.C. 20549

                               Form 10-Q (amended)

[X]    QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES
       EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

       For the quarterly period ended March 31, 2003.

[ ]    TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES
       EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934


Commission file number 0-13664

                            GRANGE NATIONAL BANC CORP.
                            --------------------------

              PENNSYLVANIA                                  23-2314065
    ------------------------------                      -------------------
   (State or other jurisdiction of                       (I.R.S. Employer
    Incorporation or organization)                      Identification No.)

                   198 E. Tioga St., Tunkhannock, Pennsylvania
                   -------------------------------------------
                    (Address of principal executive offices)

                                 (570) 836-2100
              ----------------------------------------------------
              (Registrant's telephone number, including area code)

Check whether the issuer (1) filed all reports required to be filed by Section
13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12
months (or for such shorter periods that the registrant was required to file
such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past
90 days. Yes X  No
            ---    ----

                      APPLICABLE ONLY TO CORPORATE ISSUERS

State the number of shares outstanding of each of the issuer=s classes of common
equity, as of the latest practical date: 1,636,271.
                                         ---------

Transitional Small Business Disclosure Format (Check one): Yes    ;   No
                                                               ---      ----


<PAGE>


         Page 3 of Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2003 filed
on May 15, 2003 contains the following error and is hereby amended:

         Earnings per share (basic) for the three months ended March 31, 2002
should be $0.57 instead of $0.43.

                                Grange National Banc Corp.

                                 By: /s/ Philip O. Farr
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                     Philip O. Farr
                                     Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Charles Charbonneau, Respondent, v. Sandra L. Charbonneau, Appellant.

Sweeney, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the 'Supreme Court at Special Term, entered February 25, 1970 in Fulton County, which sustained, without a hearing, a writ of habeas corpus. This controversy involves the custody of the two children of petitioner and the respondent. The children have been at all times with the respondent mother with visitation rights to the petitioner father. On October 3, 1969 letters of guardianship were issued by the Surrogate to petitioner in a proceeding in which both petitioner and respondent sought letters. In a comprehensive opinion the Surrogate determined, after a hearing, that the best interests of the infants would be served by granting petitioner control of their person and property. He granted a stay, however, to permit respondent to file an appeal. It has never been perfected, and on February 10, 1970 petitioner obtained a writ of habeas corpus which was the proper procedure to enforce a guardian’s right to custody. (See *Matter of Lee,*220 N. Y. 532, 539.) On February 23, 1970 the writ was sustained without a hearing. It is from that determination that this appeal has been taken. ‘Special Term concluded that the Surrogate had already passed on all of the issues presented to him; he determined that a hearing was not necessary; and awarded the custody of the children to petitioner. Questions of custody are for the Supreme Court in its sound discretion (Domestic Relations Law, §§ 70, 240). Its concern must be directed to what is in the childrens’ best interests. Although Special Term possessed discretion in determining custody, we conclude that it erred in relying on the fact that a hearing had been held by the Surrogate in the guardianship proceeding. Such action deprived the Special Term of the opportunity to hear and see the witnesses. This removed an essential element necessary for the exercise of independent discretion. Judgment reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and proceeding remitted to Special Term for a hearing *de novo.*Reynolds, J. P., Staley, Jr., Greenblott, Cooke and Sweeney, JJ., concur in memorandum by Sweeney, J.