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

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 UNAUDITED BALANCE SHEET, INCOME
STATEMENT AND
CASH FLOW STATEMENT, AND NOTES THERETO, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                   14,993,389
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                          0
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                       1,270,318
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       570,508
<OTHER-ASSETS>                               1,035,469
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              17,869,684
<COMMON>                                     2,628,899
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                            0
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                          5,428,853
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>               8,057,752
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                         4,324,000
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                   94,000
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>               5,487,932
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>               17,869,684
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                    3,535,441
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                           224,457
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                   2,603,281
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                   2,827,738
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        707,703
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                             308,642
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>               1,016,345
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       337,648
<NET-INCOME>                                   678,697
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                  678,697
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                       469,719
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                            0<F1>
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                     (1,067,256)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      43.
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      41.
<FN>
<F1>Not reported on an interim basis
</FN>


</TABLE>
NOTE: Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.6, this disposition is not 

citable as precedent. It is a public record. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

05-5153 

STANLEY BAKER, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

UNITED STATES, 

 Defendant-Appellee. 

_______________________ 

DECIDED: February 8, 2006 

_______________________ 

Before MICHEL, Chief Judge, LOURIE and LINN, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM. 

Stanley Baker appeals from the final decision of the United States Court of 

Federal Claims dismissing his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Baker v. 

United States, No. 05-577C (Ct. Cl. July 8, 2005) (“Decision”). We affirm. 

According to the Claims Court, Mr. Baker’s complaint and amended complaint 

contained, at most, four claims: (1) a claim of fraud against a number of private and 

state defendants; (2) an Administrative Procedure Act claim against the U.S. Postal 

Service and the Veterans Administration; (3) a motion for review of a federal district 

court’s decision; and (4) a claim of prejudice raised against certain state court judges. 

Decision, slip op. at 3. In dismissing the complaint, the court recognized that its subject 

matter jurisdiction is statutorily limited to claims for money damages against the United 
States. Id. at 4 (citing 35 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1)(2000)). Because none of the claims that 

the court could discern from Mr. Baker’s complaint was for money damages against the 

United States, it dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Id.

On appeal, Mr. Baker does not dispute the Claims Court’s characterization of the 

claims contained in his complaint, nor its grounds for dismissing those claims as beyond 

that court’s statutorily-imposed subject matter jurisdiction. Instead, Mr. Baker appears 

to assert new claims and additional facts on appeal, such as a claim for sexual 

misconduct. We discern no error in the Claims Court’s decision to dismiss the case for 

lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Moreover, it is well-settled that, as an appellate court, 

we will not normally hear any issue that is raised for the first time on appeal. See, e.g., 

James v. FERC, 755 F.2d 154, 155-56 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Thus, although we are 

sympathetic to Mr. Baker’s status as a pro se appellant, we must affirm the Claims 

Court’s decision. 

05-5153 -2-
#### WILLIAM CAMPBELL, Appellant, v. ANNIE LOUISE CAMPBELL, Respondent.

*Action for diwce*— permission *to discontinue*— when *denied.*

In an action for divorce on the ground of adultery where counter-charges of adultery hy plaintiff are set up in the answer and denied, the defendant has a right to have the question as to the plaintiff’s adultery thus raised by the answer tried, and the plaintiff will not be allowed to discontinue.

Appeal by plaintiff from an order denying a motion for- leave to discontinue this action, brought for a divorce on the ground of adultery.

*Wm. Fullerton*and *James F.*Gha/ndder, for the appellant.

*M T. Ga/mer*and *Miles Beach,*for the respondent.

Davis, P. J.:

The plaintiff brought his action for divorce for adultery. The defendant answered, denying the charges of adultery and setting up, by way of counter-claim, certain alleged adulteries of plaintiff for which she demanded affirmative relief, to wit, a decree of divorce in her favor, and alimony and provisions for her support. The plaintiff replied, denying the alleged counter-claim.

Pending a reference to fix an allowance for expenses and alimony *pendente lite,*the plaintiff moved for leave to discontinue the action. The Special Term denied the motion but allowed him to file a stipu lation, if he chose so to do, with the referee, that he would give no evidence on the trial to establish the allegations of adultery in his complaint, to be considered by the referee in fixing alimony and expenses. There are two reasons why the decision of the court below was correct: First, the question was one of discretion under all the circumstances, and we thinls the discretion was properly exercised ; second, the answer of defendant was in the nature of a cross-bill, and the issue joined thereon was one which she had a right to have tried for the purpose of obtaining her affirmative relief. *637The rule gave her the right to interpose such answer. (Rule 81 2 R. S., 145, § 42; *Leslie*v. Leslie, 11 Abb. [N. S.], 311; *17*Abb. Rep., 48.)

The defendant had, we think, a right to bring the issue joined by the reply to her answer setting up the alleged adulteries of her husband as a ground of affirmative relief, to a trial and decision, and could not, at the option of the plaintiff, be thrown out of court and compelled to resort to a new action. There is no good reason why this right should not exist, and many why it should. The proceedings in this class of actions are, to a certain extent, *sui generis.*And where the pleadings present issues of this kind, and in the form presented in this* case, each party is an actor, and cannot be deprived without his or her consent of the right to pursue affirmative relief.

The order should, therefore, be affirmed, with ten dollars costs, besides disbursements.

Brady, J., concurred in affirming the order.

Present — Davis, P. J., and Brady, J.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

VIOLET SEVEN,

Appellant,

v.

BROWARD GENERAL HOSPITAL,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-2059

[February 1, 2018]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; John B. Bowman, Judge; L.T. Case No. 15-021284.

Violet Seven, Pompano Beach, pro se.

Reid A. Cocalis of Tripp Scott, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GERBER, C.J., TAYLOR and CONNER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Dismiss and Opinion Filed June 29, 2018 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-00383-CV 

CHARLES ANTHONY ALLEN SR., Appellant 

V. 

TUESDAY REAL ESTATE, SUNWEST MORTGAGE INC. & REVERSE MORTGAGE 

FUNDING, INC., Appellees 

On Appeal from the 95th Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-15-09565 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Francis, Fillmore, and Whitehill 

Opinion by Justice Whitehill 

We questioned our jurisdiction over this appeal from the trial court’s October 23, 2017 

order of dismissal as it did not appear the appeal was timely filed. See Brashear v. Victoria 

Gardens of McKinney, L.L.C., 302 S.W.3d 542, 545 (Tex. App.–Dallas 2009, no pet.) (op. on 

reh’g) (timely filing of notice of appeal is jurisdictional). Because a timely motion to reinstate was 

filed, the notice of appeal was due January 22, 2018 or, with an extension motion, February 6, 

2018. See TEX. R. APP. P. 4.1(a), 26.1(a), 26.3. The notice of appeal, however, was not filed until 

April 3, 2018. 
 –2– 

We afforded appellant an opportunity to file a letter brief addressing our jurisdiction, but 

he failed to do so and has not otherwise corresponded with the Court. Because the record reflects 

the notice of appeal was untimely, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See id. 42.3(a). 

180383F.P05 

 

/Bill Whitehill/ 

BILL WHITEHILL 

JUSTICE 
 –3– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

CHARLES ANTHONY ALLEN SR., 

Appellant 

No. 05-18-00383-CV V. 

TUESDAY REAL ESTATE, SUNWEST 

MORTGAGE INC. & REVERSE 

MORTGAGE FUNDING INC., Appellees 

 On Appeal from the 95th Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-15-09565. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Whitehill, 

Justices Francis and Fillmore participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal. 

Judgment entered June 29, 2018.
47051.

#### VIRDEN v. THE STATE.

(380 SE2d 705)

Gregory, Justice.

Harvey Virden appeals his conviction in the Lamar County Superior Court for malice murder and escape. He was sentenced to life on the murder count and to twelve months on the escape count. On appeal, the only enumeration of error defendant raises is that the evidence does not support the verdict of guilty of malice murder.1 The record in this case would support the jury’s finding of the following facts:

Defendant and the victim, Bobbie Jean Crawley, had lived to*360gether for approximately eight years. Three weeks prior to the shooting, however, the victim asked defendant to move out and to take all of his belongings with him. Defendant moved out but refused to comply with the request to remove his belongings and even returned several times to the victim’s residence. In the week prior to the victim’s death, defendant and the victim argued several times with defendant continuing to refuse to remove his belongings from the residence.

Decided July 13, 1989.

*Martin & Martin, Harold E. Martin,*for appellant.

*Tommy K. Floyd, District Attorney, Thomas R. McBerry, Assistant District Attorney, Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General, Andrew S. Ree,*for appellee.

On the day of the shooting, defendant drove to the victim’s residence in order to retrieve $1,400 in cash he claimed to have left there. The money was not in the house, and the two began to argue. Defendant then returned to his car and retrieved his loaded shotgun. According to defendant’s own testimony, he and the victim began to argue and “to tussle.” The victim was struck in the face with a blunt instrument, possibly a fist. Expert testimony revealed that the gun was three to six feet away when it discharged and that it could not fire unless the hammer was pulled back. Furthermore, the shot was fired at the victim’s chest while defendant was standing and the victim was sitting.

A short time after the shooting, several witnesses saw defendant leave the residence in a casual manner and slowly drive off. According to defendant, he drove to Atlanta where he calmly had lunch and visited with family members. At no time did he call for help for the victim or tell anyone of the shooting. Furthermore, his gun was loaded with a slug rather than the less lethal birdshot he had in his possession.

In light of the foregoing facts, we hold that a rational trier of fact could have found defendant guilty of malice murder beyond a reasonable doubt. *Jackson v. Virginia,*443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Hunt, J., not participating.*

1

 The victim was killed on March 18, 1988. Virden was indicted on June 6, 1988. On September 28, 1988, the jury returned its verdict of guilty, and the defendant was sentenced. The order denying Virden’s motion for new trial was filed March 27, 1989, and he filed his notice of appeal on April 6, 1989. The case was docketed in this Court on May 12, 1989. The case was submitted for decision on June 22, 1989.
106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 748

AN ACT

To amend the Act that established the Keweenaw

National Historical Park to require the Secretaryof the Interior to consider nominees of variouslocal interests in appointing members of theKeweenaw National Historical Park AdvisoryCommission.
106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 748

AN ACT

To amend the Act that established the Keweenaw National

Historical Park to require the Secretary of the Interior

to consider nominees of various local interests in appointing members of the Keweenaw National Historical Park

Advisory Commission.
2

•HR 748 EH

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

3 SECTION 1. APPOINTMENTS TO KEWEENAW NATIONAL HIS4 TORICAL PARK ADVISORY COMMISSION.

5 Section 9(c)(1) of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act to estab6 lish the Keweenaw National Historical Park, and for other

7 purposes’’ (Public Law 102–543; 16 U.S.C. 410yy–

8 8(c)(1)) is amended by striking ‘‘from nominees’’ each

9 place it appears and inserting ‘‘after consideration of

10 nominees’’.

Passed the House of Representatives October 12,

1999.

Attest:

Clerk.
# Comments on: 20-1662: VISA INC. v. UNIVERSAL SECURE REGISTRY, LLC [OPINION], Nonprecedential
OERARTMENT OF 

SERVED SEPTEMBER ,,20, 0 l^fPSffe 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS '>OiO '^cP - 2 A '^ 52 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC. 

FAA DOCKET NO. CP09NM0012 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

DMS No. FAA-2009-0979 

HEARING NOTICE 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that testimony and evidence will be heard and considered 

on December 1, 2 and 3,2010, at the U.S. Tax Court, Courtroom 5223, Wallace F. 

Bennett Federal Building, 125 S. State Street, Salt Lake City, UT 84138. Hearings 

will commence at 9:00 a.m. and conclude at 4:30 p.m. each day. The parties should 

vacate the courthouse on or before 5:00 p.m. each day. 

ERED. 

u chard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment(s) - Service List 
FAA Docket No. CP09NM0012 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000' 

ONE COPY 

Todd C. Emerson, Respondent's Counsel 

Director, Government and Legal Affairs 

Sky West Airlines 

444 South River Road 

St. George, UT 84790 

TEL: 435-634-3530 

FAX: 435-634-3505 

Scott R. Morris, Complainant's Counsel 

Attorney, Office of the Regional Counsel 

Nprthwest Moimtain Region, ANM-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1601 Lind Avenue, S.W. 

Renton, WA 98057 

TEL: 425-227-1417 

FAX: 425-227-1007 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Ofiice of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Room El2-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-3 66-213 9 Attorney-Advisor 

202-366-5121 Legal Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

' Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address; 

Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 

2W1000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
Case 1:22-cr-20553-RNS Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/27/2023 Page 1 of 11
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:22-cr-20553-RNS Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/27/2023 Page 2 of 11
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:22-cr-20553-RNS Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/27/2023 Page 3 of 11
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:22-cr-20553-RNS Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/27/2023 Page 4 of 11
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:22-cr-20553-RNS Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/27/2023 Page 5 of 11
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:22-cr-20553-RNS Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/27/2023 Page 6 of 11
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:22-cr-20553-RNS Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/27/2023 Page 7 of 11
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:22-cr-20553-RNS Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/27/2023 Page 8 of 11
Case 1:22-cr-20553-RNS Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/27/2023 Page 9 of 11
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:22-cr-20553-RNS Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/27/2023 Page 10 of 11
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:22-cr-20553-RNS Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/27/2023 Page 11 of 11
`[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4205 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

<DOC>

        H.R.4205

                       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

  
 
  To amend title 11, D.C. Code, to clarify that blind individuals are 
eligible to


   serve as jurors in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF ELIGIBILITY OF BLIND INDIVIDUALS TO SERVE 
AS JURORS IN DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
    Section 11-1906(b), D.C. Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
following new paragraph:
    ``(4) An individual who is blind may not be disqualified from 
serving as a juror solely on the basis of blindness, but may be 
disqualified from serving as a juror in a particular case if the 
individual's blindness makes the individual incapable of rendering 
satisfactory jury service in that case.''.







                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.







                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.`
No. 11-5022.

#### Alexander *v.*Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<CIK> 0000005227
<NAME> AMERICAN INDEMNITY FINANCIAL CORP
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                        69,290,376
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                  15,902,540
<MORTGAGE>                                      17,074
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                              85,209,990
<CASH>                                       6,212,372
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                          18,504,525
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                       9,522,063
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             151,840,862
<POLICY-LOSSES>                             54,545,239
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                         36,887,899
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                475,137
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     6,541,351
<OTHER-SE>                                  36,921,638
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               151,840,862
<PREMIUMS>                                  31,680,749
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                          2,166,028
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                             294,523
<OTHER-INCOME>                                 376,110
<BENEFITS>                                  22,906,778
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                          0
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                        11,882,024
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (21,127)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (150,201)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            129,074
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   129,074
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .07
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        

</TABLE>