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

<ARTICLE>                      9
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted
from the consolidated financial statements and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>                       
<MULTIPLIER>                     1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                        
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                      SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                 48,437
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                    704
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                        2,150
<TRADING-ASSETS>                            0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>           362,888
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        0
<LOANS>                               773,213
<ALLOWANCE>                            11,343
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      1,227,405
<DEPOSITS>                            975,905
<SHORT-TERM>                           88,435
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                    11,253
<LONG-TERM>                             5,388
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                               42,703
<OTHER-SE>                            103,721
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>      1,227,405
<INTEREST-LOAN>                        51,161
<INTEREST-INVEST>                      14,587
<INTEREST-OTHER>                          198
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                       65,946
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                     24,898
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     27,146
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                  38,800
<LOAN-LOSSES>                             599
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                        320
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                        24,973
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        19,895
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>             15,102
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                           15,102
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            1.77
<EPS-DILUTED>                            1.77
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                           8.06
<LOANS-NON>                               647
<LOANS-PAST>                            2,168
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                            0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                           416
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                       11,038
<CHARGE-OFFS>                             436
<RECOVERIES>                              142
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                      11,343
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                    4,638
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                         0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                 6,705
                                

</TABLE>
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### June 23, 2005 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT
JOHNNY RAY CALDWELL,

Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 05-4046
v. (D.C. No. 2:04-CV-176-DAK) UTAH STATE PRISON, Mental Health; STATE OF UTAH; and DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, (D. Utah)

Defendants-Appellees.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before EBEL , McKAY , and HENRY , Circuit Judges.
After examining Appellant’s brief and the appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would notmaterially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without ora l argument. This is a pro se civil rights appeal under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In hi s claim to the district court, Mr. Caldwell asserted that his civil rights were violated by Utah-2-

Department of Corrections officials (Defendants). Mr. Caldwell claims Defendants violated his constitutional rights by de priving him of adequate medical care for his various mental disorders. Mr. Caldwell alleges Defendants’ inaction subjected him to cruel and unusual punishm ent under the Eighth Amendment. Mr. Caldwell also claims Defendants vio lated his right to access the courts by not providing him adequate legal material s or assistance. The district court dismissed Mr. Caldwell’s complaint because he failed to state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and entered judgment in Defendants’ favor on both claims. Mr. Caldwell appeals to this court. After a thorough review of the Appellant’s brief, the district court’s order, and the record, and for substantially the same reas ons set forth in the district court’s well-reasoned January 27, 2005 order and ju dgment of dismissal, we hold that no relief is available to Mr. Caldwell pursuan t to § 1983. The decision of the district court is AFFIRMED . Mr. Caldwell’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is GRANTED . We therefore remind Mr. Caldwell that he must continue to make partial paym ents of his court fees and costs previously assessed until such have been paidin full. Entered for the Court Monroe G. McKay Circuit Judge
Denied and Opinion Filed May 22, 2015.

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-15-00572-CV

IN RE GREYHOUND LINES, INC. AND DWAYNE GARRETT, Relators

Original Proceeding from the County Court at Law No. 3

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-13-05789-C

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Lang, Fillmore, and Brown

Opinion by Justice Lang

Relators filed this original proceeding requesting that the Court order the trial court to 

vacate its April 27, 2015 order requiring relator Dwayne Garrett to submit to a sleep study. 

Ordinarily, to obtain mandamus relief, a relator must show both that the trial court has clearly 

abused its discretion and that the relator has no adequate appellate remedy. In re Prudential Ins. 

Co., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). We conclude relators have failed 

to establish a right to the relief requested. 

We deny the petition for writ of mandamus. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8.

150572F.P05

/Douglas S. Lang/

DOUGLAS S. LANG

JUSTICE
DISCRETIONARY APPEALS ALLOWED

98-219.

#### Pretty v. Mueller.

Hamilton App. Nos. C-970011 and C-970332.

Moyer, C.J., Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., dissent.
#### Peter Masterson, *Appellant, v. J*eremiah A. Cranitch and others, *Respondents.*

— Order reversed and proceedings remanded for further action, as directed in opinion. Opinion

*Per Ouriam.*
§ 169.231 Definitions relating to hull examinations. As used in the part— ( a ) *Drydock examination* means hauling out a vessel or placing a vessel in a drydock or slipway for an examination of all accessible parts of the vessel's underwater body and all through-hull fittings, sea chests, sea valves, sea strainers, and valves for the emergency bilge suction.
( b ) *Underwater survey* means the examination of the vessel's underwater hull including all through-hull fittings and appurtenances, while the vessel is afloat.
( c ) *Internal structural examination* means an examination of the vessel while afloat or in drydock and consists of a complete examination of the vessel's main strength members, including the major internal framing, the hull plating, voids, and ballast tanks, but not including cargo or fuel oil tanks.
[CGD 84-024, 52 FR 39656, Oct. 23, 1987, as amended at 53 FR 32232, Aug. 24, 1988; USCG-2000-6858, 67 FR 21084, Apr. 29, 2002]
COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS

MAX GROSSMAN,

Appellant /Cross

- Appellee
,

v.
CITY OF EL PASO,

Appellee /Cross

- Appellant

. §

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 19

- 00272

- CV

Appeal from the

384th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2017

- DCV2528)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was error in the trial

court ’s order denying Appellant/Cross

- Appellee ’s application for a temporary injunction. W e

therefore reverse the trial court’s order denying injunctive relief and remand the cause to the trial
court with instructions that it grant Appellant/Cross

- Appellee’s request for a temporar y injunction
,
consistent with th e opinion of th is Court and pending further proceedings in the trial court.

We further order that the trial court’s order den ying Appellee/Cross

- Appellant’s plea to the
jurisdiction is affirmed, in accordance with the opinion of this Court.
We further order that Appellant /Cross

- Appellee recover from Appellee /Cross

- Appellant
all costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue. This decision shall be certified below for

observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 10 TH DAY OF NO VEMBER , 20 2 1.

GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Alley, JJ. Alley, J., dissenting
Subsidiaries of the Registrant

Tracor, Inc.
     GDE Systems, Inc.
          Aerial Data Reduction Associates, Inc.
          GDE-Helava, Inc.
          GDE Systems Imaging, Inc.
          GDESI, Inc.
     Rokar International, Ltd.
     Tracor Aerospace, Inc.
          Tracor Aerospace Electronic Systems, Inc.
     Tracor Australia PTY Limited
     Tracor Flight Systems, Inc.
     Tracor FSC, Inc.
     Tracor Holdings, Inc.
     Tracor Information Systems Company
          Tracor Enterprise Solutions, Inc.
     Tracor Marine, Inc.
     Tracor Services Corporation
          Tracor Technical Services, Inc.
     Tracor Systems Technologies, Inc.
          Quality Systems, Inc.
          Vitro Systems International Corporation
                    Vitro Sciences International, Inc.
     Westmark Services Company, Inc.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Developmental Biology Subcommittee, June 7, 2007, 8:30 a.m. to June 7, 2007, 5 p.m., Hotel Washington, Pennsylvania Avenue at 15th Street, NW., Washington, DC                           ( print page 28515)                        20004, which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on May 9, 2007, 72 FR 26409.                

The meeting will now be held at the Hyatt Regency in Crystal City, 2799 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. The meeting is closed to the public.

Dated: May 14, 2007.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 07-2494  Filed 5-18-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
Exhibit 10.10

            AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE INCENTIVE STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT

     This Amendment No. 1 to the Incentive Stock Option Agreement, effective as
of July 26, 2000, by and between CFW Communications Company, a Virginia
corporation (the "Company"), and (name) ("Participant").

     WHEREAS, on (date) the Company and the Participant entered into an
Incentive Stock Option Agreement pursuant and subject to the provisions of the
Company's 1997 Stock Option Plan.

     WHEREAS, the parties hereto desire to amend the Incentive Stock Option
Agreement to clarify their agreement with respect thereto;

     NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, and based upon the mutual covenants
contained herein, the parties hereto agree as follows:

     1.   Section 6 is hereby amended to include the following new subparagraphs
inserted after subparagraph (d):

          (e)  A "change in control" shall not include an acquisition, directly
or indirectly, of more than 30% of the combined voting power of the Company's
then outstanding securities by WCAS, any Controlled Entity and any person to
whom WCAS is permitted to transfer its Common Stock or Preferred Stock
("Permitted Transferee") pursuant to the Shareholder's Agreement, as amended,
restated or modified from time to time in accordance with the terms thereof
("Shareholder's Agreement") dated July 11, 2000 among the Company, WCAS and
certain other Persons, but only so long as WCAS, any Controlled Entity, and any
Permitted Transferee shall comply with Article 5 of the Shareholder's Agreement.

          (f)  "Controlled Entity" shall mean any entity in which WCAS owns the
majority of the voting shares or securities or has the ability (whether through
the ownership of voting securities, contract or otherwise) to elect a majority
of the board of directors or other similar governing body or of which WCAS has
the authority to control or direct the investment decisions.

          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment No. 1 to
the Incentive Stock Option Agreement effective as of the day and year first
above written.
<PAGE>

[SEAL]

                                         CFW Communications Company
Attest:

By:_______________________________       By:_______________________________
    Secretary



[SEAL]


Attest:

By:_______________________________       By:_______________________________
     Name:                                      Participant
     Title:
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 12 (Friday, January 19, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 2563]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-229]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]


In the Matter of Forest Resources Management Corp.; Order of 
Suspension of Trading

January 17, 2007.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 
Forest Resources Management Corp. (``Forest'') because of questions 
raised regarding the accuracy and adequacy of publicly disseminated 
information concerning, among other things, Forest's assets and 
Forest's announced contracts and agreements.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the 
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the 
securities of the above-listed company.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the 
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the above-listed 
company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EST, January 17, 
2007, through 11:59 p.m. EST, on January 30, 2007.

    By the Commission.
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 07-229 Filed 1-17-07; 11:52 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                              11
<SECURITIES>                                     1,491
<RECEIVABLES>                                   38,739
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                11,985
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,006,250
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          391,282
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    500,000
<COMMON>                                         1,213
<OTHER-SE>                                     113,755
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,006,250
<SALES>                                          1,519
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,519
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,174,999
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,346
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,137,334)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,137,334)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,137,334)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.18)
        

</TABLE>
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1829

To evaluate the effectiveness of the juvenile justice system and report on

certain information.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 13, 1995

Mr. WYDEN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on the Judiciary

A BILL

To evaluate the effectiveness of the juvenile justice system

and report on certain information.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Comprehensive Survey

5 of Young Offenders Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

7 (a) FINDINGS.—The Congress finds the following:

8 (1) Juvenile violent crime over the past decade

9 has increased at a rate double that for adults, reach10 ing the highest level in this country’s history.
2

•HR 1829 IH

1 (2) Anecdotal evidence suggests that young of2 fenders may pass through the juvenile justice and

3 social service systems repeatedly before being held

4 accountable for their actions.

5 (3) There is little reliable data on the effective6 ness of this country’s juvenile justice systems in en7 suring accountability and community safety, and re8 ducing recidivism.

9 (b) PURPOSES.—The purpose of this Act is to gen10 erate a comprehensive report on this country’s juvenile

11 justice systems including the flow of offenders through the

12 system, recidivism rates, and dispositions imposed for of13 fenses.

14 SEC. 3. REPORT.

15 Not later than 2 years after the date of the enact16 ment of this Act, the Bureau of Justice Statistics shall

17 submit to Congress a report on juvenile justice systems

18 across the country. Such report shall include the following:

19 (1) A survey of data now available in represent20 ative States and localities as determined by the At21 torney General (including urban, suburban, and

22 rural localities) regarding juvenile offenders arrested

23 for an offense. The survey will include the age of of24 fenders and offense as well as a comprehensive eval25 uation of intake procedures, formal and informal
3

•HR 1829 IH

1 proceedings, and outcomes such as dispositions, re2 sults of nonpetitioned juvenile proceedings, and re3 cidivism rates.

4 (2) Design and estimate costs for a program

5 that will improve data collection for selected States

6 by—

7 (A) identifying young offenders by name as

8 they flow through the system, from arrest

9 through intake interview, court proceedings,

10 and disposition;

11 (B) compiling young offender records that

12 permit analysts to study the penalty, if any,

13 given for each offense and for each offender;

14 and

15 (C) encouraging States, which can identify

16 juvenile records through fingerprints and are

17 prepared to allow juvenile records to be made

18 available for analytical purposes, to cooperate in

19 a pilot program to test the feasibility and value

20 of a new reporting system.

Æ
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JAMAL M. EL-ABED,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 06-72821

Agency No. A092-774-881

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 13, 2010** 

Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Jamal M. El-Abed, a native of Kuwait and citizen of Jordan, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8

U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Aguilar Gonzalez v.

FILED

SEP 27 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 06-72821

Mukasey, 534 F.d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny in part, and dismiss in part

the petition for review. 

Contrary to El-Abed’s contention, the IJ did not rely on the conviction

record of his vacated plea, but instead properly relied on the testimony of El-Abed

and the government’s witness in determining that El-Abed was inadmissible under

8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(C) for participating in drug trafficking. See Lopez-Umanzor

v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 1049, 1053-54 (9th Cir. 2005) (recognizing that witness

testimony may support a finding of inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1182(a)(2)(C)).

We lack jurisdiction to review El-Abed’s remaining contentions because he

failed to exhaust them before the agency. See Abebe v. Mukasey, 554 F.3d 1203,

1208 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
§ 62.15-1 Conditions under which equivalents may be used. ( a ) The Coast Guard accepts a substitute or alternate for the requirements of this part if it provides an equivalent level of safety and reliability. Demonstration of functional equivalence must include comparison of a qualitative failure analysis based on the requirements of this part with a comparable analysis of the proposed substitute or alternate.
( b ) [Reserved]