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

<ARTICLE> 9
<CIK> 0000707604
<NAME> BRITTON & KOONTZ FIRST NATIONAL BANK
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                       5,076,459
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                     133,985,449
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             1,540,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  8,774,416
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      34,235,742
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        34,769,546
<LOANS>                                    121,607,088
<ALLOWANCE>                                    769,924
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             182,147,832
<DEPOSITS>                                 156,809,572
<SHORT-TERM>                                 2,166,043
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          3,426,196
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     4,417,660
<OTHER-SE>                                  15,328,361
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             182,147,832
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              2,597,261
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              735,603
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             3,332,864
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           1,336,272
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,382,682
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        1,950,182
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   45,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              1,458,100
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                876,853
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     567,633
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   567,633
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.32
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.32
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.84
<LOANS-NON>                                    279,652
<LOANS-PAST>                                   407,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               746,738
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   25,833
<RECOVERIES>                                     4,019
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              769,924
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
#### Frederick Achenbach, Appellant, v. The Order of Germania, Respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by Barnard, P. J.; Pratt, J., not sitting.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>  5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
REGISTRANT'S  FORM 10-KSB FOR THE QUARTER  ENDED MARCH 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY TO SUCH FORM 10-KSB.
</LEGEND>

<S>                                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                  APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                    MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                               94,735
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                             0
<ALLOWANCES>                                              0
<INVENTORY>                                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     94,735
<PP&E>                                                3,572
<DEPRECIATION>                                        2,569
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       95,738
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                     0
<BONDS>                                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                             17,888
<OTHER-SE>                                           77,850
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         95,738
<SALES>                                                   0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      4,873
<CGS>                                                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        28,535
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                        0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     (23,662)
<INCOME-TAX>                                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 (23,662)
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                        (23,662)
<EPS-BASIC>                                         (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (0.01)



</TABLE>
H. Res. 71

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

March 1, 2001.

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule

XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of

the bill (H.R. 333) to amend title 11, United States Code,

and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be

dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of

the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the

bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the

Committee on the Judiciary. After general debate the bill

shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute

rule. The amendments recommended by the Committee on

the Judiciary now printed in the bill shall be considered as

adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole.

The bill, as amended, shall be considered as the original bill

for the purpose of further amendment under the five-minute

rule and shall be considered as read. All points of order
2

•HRES 71 EH

against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. No

further amendment to the bill shall be in order except those

printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered

only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the

report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an

opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not

be subject to a demand for division of the question in the

House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order

against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion of

consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall

rise and report the bill, as amended, to the House with such

further amendments as may have been adopted. The previous

question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and

amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

SEC. 2. Upon receipt of a message from the Senate

transmitting H.R. 333 with Senate amendments thereto, it

shall be in order to consider in the House a motion offered

by the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary or his
3

•HRES 71 EH

designee that the House disagree to the Senate amendments

and request or agree to a conference with the Senate thereon.

Attest:

Clerk.
#### Charles S. Archer, Respondent, v. The New York, New Haven and Hartford Railway Company Appellant.

Judgment affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 600 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 House Calendar No. 233
107th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 600

                          [Report No. 107-773]

 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5710) to establish the 
        Department of Homeland Security, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

            November 13 (legislative day, November 12), 2002

 Mr. Diaz-Balart, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
 resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5710) to establish the 
        Department of Homeland Security, and for other purposes.

    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order without intervention of any point of order to consider in the 
House the bill (H.R. 5710) to establish the Department of Homeland 
Security, and for other purposes. The bill shall be considered as read 
for amendment. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
the bill to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one 
hour of debate on the bill equally divided and controlled by the 
chairman and ranking minority member of the Select Committee on 
Homeland Security; and (2) one motion to recommit.

                                                 House Calendar No. 233

107th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                              H. RES. 600

                          [Report No. 107-773]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5710) to establish the 
        Department of Homeland Security, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

            November 13 (legislative day, November 12), 2002

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 01-2158

___________

Household Automotive Finance, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Western

* District of Missouri.

Paul Bernard Gorham, Jr.; *

Dana Jai Gorham; * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellees, *

*

Richard V. Fink, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: December 6, 2001

 Filed: December 11, 2001

___________

Before McMILLIAN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

This matter arises from the Chapter 13 bankruptcy of Paul and Dana Gorham.

In their Chapter 13 plan, the Gorhams elected to retain an automobile financed

through Household Automotive Finance Corporation (HAFC), pursuant to the “cramdown” option of 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(5)(B). The plan proposed that the Gorhams

would pay HAFC interest at a rate of 9%, as determined by Local Rule for the United
1

The Honorable Frank W. Koger, United States Bankruptcy Judge for the

Western District of Missouri.

2

The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., United States District Judge for the

Western District of Missouri.

-2-

States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Missouri 3084-1.E. The local

rule rate is calculated based on the 30-year treasury bond rate for a specified date,

plus 2% nominal interest, and is referred to as the “Chapter 13 rate.” HAFC objected

to the plan’s proposed interest rate, arguing that the appropriate rate was the 20.95%

contract rate.

The bankruptcy court1

 denied HAFC’s objection, holding that Rule 3084-1.E

was a reasonable means of determining the appropriate interest rate in Chapter 13

cases, and that HAFC’s proposed rate improperly accounted for profit and overhead.

HAFC appealed the decision to the district court,2

 and the district court affirmed. In

this appeal, HAFC argues that the bankruptcy court did not consider the evidence

presented; and even if it did, it erred in concluding that the Chapter 13 rate was

appropriate. 

We find the bankruptcy court reviewed the evidence before it and concluded

that the Chapter 13 rate was appropriate in the circumstances, and that HAFC’s

proposed rate was too high. Further, we find no clear error in the bankruptcy court’s

conclusion that the Chapter 13 rate was reasonable. See United States v. Doud, 869

F.2d 1144, 1146 (8th Cir. 1989) (appropriate rate consists of risk-free rate plus

additional reasonable interest to compensate creditor for risk of default; reviewing

determination of proper rate for clear error). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of

the district court.
-3-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RICHARD FERRY, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

KEVIN DOOHAN, Washington County 

Community Corrections (WCCC) PostPrison Supervision Officer; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 18-35228 

D.C. No. 3:18-cv-00153-AC 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Marco A. Hernandez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 15, 2019**

Before: TROTT, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Richard Ferry appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his 

motion for a preliminary injunction in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging 

constitutional claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291(a)(1). We 

 

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

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

FILED

JAN 23 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 

review for an abuse of discretion. Am. Hotel & Lodging Ass’n v. City of Los 

Angeles, 834 F.3d 958, 962 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm. 

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Ferry’s motion for 

a preliminary injunction because Ferry failed to establish that he is likely to 

succeed on the merits of his claim that the conditions of his supervised release

requiring him to participate in polygraph examinations violate his Fifth 

Amendment right against self-incrimination. See Jackson v. City & County of San 

Francisco, 746 F.3d 953, 958 (9th Cir. 2014) (plaintiff seeking preliminary 

injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, he is likely to 

suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, the balance of the 

equities tips in his favor, and an injunction is in the public interest); United States 

v. Antelope, 395 F.3d 1128, 1134-35 (9th Cir. 2005) (conditions of supervised 

release that require participation in polygraph examinations implicate Fifth 

Amendment right against self-incrimination where the risk of incrimination in a 

criminal prosecution is real and appreciable). 

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on 

appeal, see Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009), and we do not 

consider documents not presented to the district court, see United States v. Elias, 
 3 

921 F.3d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990). 

Ferry’s request for judicial notice, set forth in his opening brief, is denied.

AFFIRMED.
#### Mary Crevoirserat, Appellant, *v.*Cornelius R. Bergen et al., Respondents.

Reported below, 140 App. Div. 893.

(Submitted May 13, 1912;

decided May 24, 1912.)

Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered October 29,1910, affirming a judgment in favor of defendants entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court on trial at Special Term.

The motion was made on the ground that the appeal ■had not been perfected by the filing of the required undertaking.

*Edward L. Frost*for motion.

*Elvin N. Edwards*opposed.

Motion denied, without costs, on condition that within twenty days the appellant serves and files the undertaking required by law, the sureties thereon, if excepted to, to justify. On failure to comply with these conditions within the time aforesaid, the motion is granted, with ten dollars costs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          36,973
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   60,751
<ALLOWANCES>                                       463
<INVENTORY>                                     57,509
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               284,989
<PP&E>                                         244,974
<DEPRECIATION>                                  36,370
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 809,960
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          225,792
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           114
<OTHER-SE>                                    (23,563)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   809,960
<SALES>                                        167,551
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               167,551
<CGS>                                          159,578
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  159,578
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,241
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,014
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,237
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,488
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,982)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,982)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.19)


</TABLE>
From: Jill Eichhorn

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Thank you for supporting birth control access for all women

Date: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 4:07:06 AM

Dear Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health & Human Services,

I commend the Department of Health & Human Services' landmark decision requiring health insurers to

cover the full cost of contraception, with no co-pay, beginning in August 2012.

This policy places a much-needed importance on women's health that is too-often not a priority in

health care policy. Birth control is a critical part of preventive care, and making contraception available

to all women, regardless of their insurance or ability to pay for it, will significantly reduce long-term

health care costs associated with unplanned pregnancies.

Thank you for prioritizing women's basic health care needs.

Sincerely,

Jill Eichhorn

549 Beechwood Dr

Clarksville, TN 37040
----

----

|                                                                       |   | Fiscal Year Ended December 31, |    |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------|---------|
|                                                                       |   | 2010                           |    |   | 2009 |   |   | 2008 |   |
|                                                                       |   | (in thousands)                 |    |
|                                                                       |   |                           |    |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Weighted average number of shares outstanding:                             |   |                           |    |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Class A                                                                    |   |                           | 56,134  |   |   |   | 56,151 |   |   |   | 57,755 |   |
|                                                                       |   |                           |    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Basic and diluted  EPS:                                          |   |                           |    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Loss  from continuing operations attributable to Ampal's shareholders |   | $                              | (64,645 | ) |   |   | (19,481 | ) |   | $ | (15,866 | ) |
| Income from discontinued operations, net of tax                            |   |                           | 19,903  |   |   |   | -- |   |   |   | -- |   |
| Net (Loss) income attributable to Ampal's shareholders                     |   | $                              | (44,742 | ) |   |   | (19,481 | ) |   | $ | (15,866 | ) |
| Earnings per share of Class A Stock:                                       |   |                           |    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Loss income from continuing operations                                     |   | $                              | (1.15   | ) |   |   | (0.35 | ) |   | $ | (0.27 | ) |
| Income (loss) from discontinued operations, net of tax                     |   |                           | 0.35    |   |   |   | -- |   |   |   | -- |   |
|                                                                       |   | $                              | (0.80   | ) |   |   | (0.35 | ) |   | $ | (0.27 | ) |
|                                                                       |   |                           |    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Shares used in calculation                                                 |   |                           | 56,134  |   |   |   | 56,151 |   |   |   | 57,755 |   |

----

----
---

---

EXHIBIT 23.18



Date:  
  March 28, 2004 
  Our ref:  763757



**CONSENT
  OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS**

As independent public accountants of Trinet Venture Capital Ltd., we hereby
  consent to the incorporation of our report dated March 11, 2002, included in
  Form 10-K of Ampal-American Israel Corporation for the year ended December 31,
  2001 (relating to the financial statements of Trinet Venture Capital Ltd. not
  included herein), into Ampal-American Israel Corporations previously
  filed Registration Statements No. 333-61895 and No. 333-55970.



Brightman Almagor
  & Co
  Cretified Public Accountants
  A member of Deloitte Touche

---

---