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

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 10-Q
DATED MAY 2, 2000 FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL INFORMATION.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          36,501
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             113
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 4,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     39,937
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           4,650
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             4,660
<LOANS>                                        691,811
<ALLOWANCE>                                      6,014
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 792,438
<DEPOSITS>                                     627,105
<SHORT-TERM>                                    10,024
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              6,390
<LONG-TERM>                                     98,035
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           23,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,520
<OTHER-SE>                                      26,268
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 792,438
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 17,256
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  626
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    21
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                17,903
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               7,440
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,300
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            8,603
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      754
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  5,466
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,461
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       2,133
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,133
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.28
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.89
<LOANS-NON>                                      3,323
<LOANS-PAST>                                       592
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 5,322
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       65
<RECOVERIES>                                         3
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                6,014
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          6,014


</TABLE>
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A20A1501. JOHNNY J. UNION v. THE STATE.

In May 2019, Johnny J. Union pled guilty to entering an automobile, for which

he was sentenced to five years of probation. On December 10, 2019, the trial court

revoked three years of Union’s probation. Thereafter, on February 7, 2020, Union

filed a pro se notice of appeal. We, however, lack jurisdiction for two reasons.

First, an application for discretionary appeal is required to appeal orders

revoking probation. OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (5); see Todd v. State, 236 Ga. App. 757,

758 (513 SE2d 287) (1999) (holding that where the underlying subject matter is

probation revocation, the discretionary appeal procedure applies); accord White v.

State, 233 Ga. App. 873, 874 (505 SE2d 228) (1998).

Second, even if Union had a right of direct appeal, his notice of appeal was not

timely filed. A notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of entry of the order

sought to be appealed. OCGA § 5-6-38 (a). The proper and timely filing of a notice

of appeal is an absolute requirement to confer jurisdiction on this Court. Rowland v. 

State, 264 Ga. 872, 872 (1) (452 SE2d 756) (1995). Union’s notice of appeal, filed

March 23, 2020
59 days after the trial court’s revocation order, was untimely.

For these reasons, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal, which is hereby

DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

03/23/2020
Exhibit 99.2









Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Management of Protective Life Insurance Company and The Bank of New York, as Indenture Trustee of Protective
Life Secured Trust 2005-16, (collectively the "Management")
and Wilmington Trust Company, as Trustee of Protective Life Secured Trust 2005-16 (the "Trust"):

We have examined Management's assertion, included in the accompanying "Management Assertion Regarding the Collection and Distribution of Trust Money by The Bank of New York (Indenture Trustee)," that the collection of payments on the funding agreements and distribution of payments to the noteholders has occurred as required by Section 5.02 of the Indenture agreement dated November 7, 2003 between the Trust and the Indenture Trustee during the year ended December 31, 2005.  Management is responsible for the assertion.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the assertion based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting management's assertion and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.  We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, Management's assertion referred to above is fairly stated, in all material respects, based on the criteria defined in the accompanying "Management Assertion Regarding the Collection and Distribution of Trust Money by The Bank of New York (Indenture Trustee)."



PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Birmingham, AlabamaMarch 31, 2006











Management Assertion Regarding the Collection and Distribution of Trust
Money by The Bank of New York (Indenture Trustee)





Management of the Trust asserts that it has collected payments on the funding agreements and distributed payments to the noteholders as required by Section 5.02 of the Indenture agreement dated November 7, 2003 between the Trust and the Indenture Trustee for the year ended December 31, 2005.  This assertion is based on the following criteria:

1. The payments made by Protective Life on the funding agreements that secured the Notes, for the year ended December 31, 2005, are included in Protective Life's Secured Trusts P & I Payments: 1/1/05 through 12/31/05 (P & I Payments report).
2. The payments made by Protective Life on the funding agreements that secured the Notes, for the year ended December 31, 2005, are included in the Indenture Trustee's History of Transactions List.
3. The amounts due on the Notes are reported as a component of the charges from Cede & Co., the nominee of the Depository Trust Company, on the Indenture Trustee's Payment Obligation Report System (PORS Report).
4. Charges from Cede & Co. are included in the Indenture Trustee's screen prints titled The Depository Trust Company Activity History Details, which represent the charge confirmations to Cede & Co., the nominee of the Depository Trust Company.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

SHAWN WINTERS,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 290 EAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 4th day of December, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
Before the First Division,

November 23, 1966

No. P66/350.

#### F. B. Wilcon *v.*United States, protests 58/21012 and 59/29714 (Boston).

Nichols, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of fish fillets, bits, and pieces, compressed and frozen in blocks, similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Gorton’s of Gloucester, Inc.*v. *United States*(52 CCPA 86, C.A.D. 863), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 56197.

protests 137112-K, etc. (New York).

#### Theil-Schoen Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of alabaster beads similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Eitinger Bead Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(17 Cust. Ct. 56, C. D. 1020). The claim at 35 percent under paragraph 1503 was therefore sustained.
No. 67653.

#### Safeway Stores, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 62/3261 (Seattle).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *Falcon Sales Company*and *J. J. Murphy & Co.*v. *United States*(47 Cust. Ct. 129, C.D. 2292), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
#### Sukhdev SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-1142.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 29, 2005.

Decided: Aug. 19, 2005.

Sukhdev Singh, Petitioner Pro Se. M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Larry Patrick Cote, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Sukhdev Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming, without opinion, the immigration judge’s order denying his motion to reopen immigration proceedings. Based on our review of the record, we find that the immigration judge did not abuse his discretion in denying Singh’s motion to reopen as untimely. Singh failed to file his motion within 180 days of his in absentia removal order as required by 8 U.S.C. *186§ 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i) (2000) and 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(ii) (2005). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*PETITION DENIED*
Before the Second Division,

April 10, 1957

No. 60615.

#### J. E. Bernard & Company, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 185274-K/3774 (Chicago).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the

merchandise consists of metal ironer parts similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States v. J. E. Bernard & Company, Inc.*(42 C. C. P. A. 141, C. A. D. 586), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
### Geochemical database for the Boulder batholith and its satellitic plutons, Southwest Montana

By: Edward A. du Bray**Karen Lund**Robert I. Tilling**Paul DenningEd DeWitt

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/ds454

#### Links

- More information:  **USGS Index Page**                            (html)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

#### Study Area
ORDER - 1 LAW OFFICES OF

SUZANNE LEE ELLIOTT

1300 Hoge Building 

705 Second Avenue 

Seattle, Washington 98104-1705 

206.623.0291 

FAX 206.623.2186 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

JUDGE JAMES L. ROBART 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 

AT SEATTLE 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, 

 V. 

CALVIN J. BROWN, 

 Defendant. 

No. CR05-00395JLR 

AMENDED ORDER CONTINUING 

TRIAL DATE 

NOTED FOR: MARCH 21, 2006 

In view of the motion to continue trial date and declaration of counsel, the Court 

hereby makes the following findings: 

1. The Court finds that a failure to grant the continuance under these circumstances 

would violate the Federal Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161 et seq., and the Plan 

for the Prompt Disposition of Criminal Cases promulgated by the United States 

District Court for the Western District of Washington pursuant to the Federal 

Speedy Trial Act. 

2. The Court further finds that the ends of justice will be served by ordering a 

continuance in this case, that a continuance is necessary to insure that the defendant 

is healthy and capable of assisting his counsel before and during trial, and that these 

Case 2:05-cr-00395-JLR Document 28 Filed 03/21/06 Page 1 of 2
ORDER - 2 LAW OFFICES OF

SUZANNE LEE ELLIOTT

1300 Hoge Building 

705 Second Avenue 

Seattle, Washington 98104-1705 

206.623.0291 

FAX 206.623.2186 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

factors outweigh the best interests of the public in a speedy trial under 18 U.S.C. § 

3161(h)(8)(A). 

3. The Court further finds that on March 20, 2006, Mr. Brown filed a waiver of his 

right to a speedy trial. 

4. The Court further finds that the time period from March 27, 2006 until June 1, 

2006, is excluded for the purpose of computing the time limitations imposed by the 

Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161-3174. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the trial in this matter is continued to June 1, 

2006. 

Dated this 21st

A

 day of March, 2006. 

JAMES L. ROBART 

United States District Judge 

Case 2:05-cr-00395-JLR Document 28 Filed 03/21/06 Page 2 of 2
Case No. 12,988.

#### In re SMITH.

[14 N. B. R. 432.] 1

District Court, N. D. New York.

Aug. 19, 1876.

Bankruptcy — Examination op Assignee — Order of Register.

1. An assignee may be subpoenaed and required to testify in the same manner as any other witness, and the register has authority to make the requisite order.

2. An assignee is not subject, as of course, to an examination by any creditor whenever the latter may desire it; but will be protected against unnecessary annoyance, by refusing an application for his examination unless upon some issues regularly referred to the register.

[In the matter of Elmer C. Smith, a hank-rapt.]

De L. Crittenden, for creditors opposing discharge.

Quincy Van Voorhis, for bankrupt.

1

 [Reprinted by permission.]

WALLACE, District Judge.

The assignee may be subpoenaed and required to testify in the same manner as any other witness, and he may also be examined orally without subpoena, upon submitting his account preparatory to a final dividend; and in either of these cases the register has authority to make the requisite order. But the assignee is not subject, as of course, to an examination by any creditor, whenever the latter may desire it If he fails to file his reports according to the rules of the courts, or the general orders, he may be compelled to do so upon an application to the court, and he may be punished for contempt for delinquency; but he is not to be subjected to examinations, as the bankrupt is, upon the mere motion of a creditor, and will be protected against unnecessary annoyance by refusing an application for his examination, unless upon some issue regularly referred to the register.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sebastian RODRIGUEZ-GOMEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-50267.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Aug. 17, 2005.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

M. Carolyn Fuentes, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Sebastian Rodriguez-Gomez raises arguments that are foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 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. R. 47.5.4.
(Reap. Dec. 11075)

#### Elof Hansson, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 2497.

(Decided October 13, 1965)

*Sharp, Solter*& *Hutchison*for the plaintiff.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Rao, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation:

> *617IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by tbe undersigned, subject to tbe approval of tbe Court:

> 1. That tbe subject merchandise consists of hardboard exported from Sweden as to which tbe Secretary of tbe Treasury issued a finding of dumping, published in 89 TD 197, TD 63567, made pursuant to tbe Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C., 160, et seq.).

> 2. That pursuant to Section 168 of said Antidumping Act, tbe appraiser reported tbe purchase price (See. 162) and the foreign market value (Sec. 164) as to tbe merchandise listed on Schedule A attached hereto and made a part hereof.

> 3. That pursuant to Sections 500 and 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, the appraiser appraised all of the merchandise in the appeals for appraisement enumerated on Schedule A for regular duty purposes.

> 4. That the plaintiff duly filed appeals for reappraisement as to the values referred to in the above paragraphs Nos. 2 and 3.

> 5. That at the times relevant herein the purchase price and the foreign market value under the said Antidumping Act are as specified in the aforesaid Schedule A attached hereto.

> 6. That as to all other items of merchandise not identified on Schedule A, the appraiser’s reports of purchase price and of foreign market value are correct.

> 7. That the appraiser’s findings of value under the provisions of Section 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, are correct.

> 8. That said appeals are submitted for decision upon this stipulation and said Schedule A.

Upon the agreed facts, I find foreign market value, as defined in section 164 of the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C. § 164), for the merchandise described in schedule A, annexed to this decision and made a part hereof, and the purchase price thereof, within section 162 of said act (19 U.S.C. § 162), to be as indicated in said schedule. As to all other items of merchandise not identified in schedule A, I find the foreign market values and purchase prices to be as reported by the appraiser. In all other respects, the values of all merchandise are as returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
| Skip to Content*Release Date: December 9, 2013*Release dates |  Announcements |   Coded tables |  Historical data | Technical Q&AsCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB) |  Data Download Program (DDP)**L.2 Credit Market Debt Owed by Nonfinancial Sectors** |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
m

(

(

)

GAME BIRDS BELOW DESIRED CONDITION (GBBDC)

This draft list represents species whose population are below long-term averages or management

goals, or for which there is evidence of declining population trends. This draft list is 

a working document and may be periodically updated based upon review of status and trend data.

Common Name Genus Spp. Ssp Qualifier Status b Designation

Brant (Atlantic) Branta bernicla hrota

Western 

Atlantic pop BMC GBBDC

Brant (Black) Branta bernicla nigricans

Eastern 

Pacific pop BMC GBBDC

Brant (Gray-bellied) Branta bernicla hrota & nigrica

Canadian 

High Arctic 

pop BMC GBBDC

Canvasback Aythya valisineria BMC GBBDC

Dove Mourning Zenaida macroura Western pop BMC GBBDC

Duck American Black Anas rupripes

Atlantic 

Flyway pop BMC GBBDC

Duck American Black Anas rupripes

Mississippi 

Flyway pop BMC GBBDC

Duck Harlequin Histrionicus histronicus histronicus

(Eastern 

pop) BMC GBBDC

Duck Harlequin Histrionicus histronicus pacificus

(Western 

pop) BMC GBBDC

Duck Mottled Anas fulvigula BMC GBBDC

Duck Ring-necked Aythya collaris BMC GBBDC

Duck Wood Aix sponsa BMC GBBDC

Duck Wood Aix sponsa Eastern pop BMC GBBDC

Duck Wood Aix sponsa Interior pop BMC GBBDC

Duck Wood Aix sponsa Western pop BMC GBBDC

Eider Common Somateria mollissima BMC GBBDC

Goose Canada (Cackling) Branta canadensis minima BMC GBBDC

Goose Canada (Dusky) Branta canadensis occidentalis BMC GBBDC

Goose Canada (Southern Ja Branta canadensis interior

Southern 

James Bay 

pop BMC GBBDC

Goose Emperor Chen canagicus BMC GBBDC

Goose Greater White-fronted Anser albifrons frontalis

Pacific 

Flyway pop 

(part) BMC GBBDC

Goose Greater White-fronted Anser albifrons gambelli

Pacific 

Flyway pop 

(part) BMC GBBDC

Goose Snow (Wrangell Island Chen caerulescens caerulescens

Wrangell 

Island pop BMC GBBDC

Goose White-fronted (Tule) Anser albifrons elgasi BMC GBBDC

Mallard Anas platyrhynchos BMC GBBDC

Pigeon Band-tailed Columba fasciata BMC GBBDC

Pintail Northern Anas acuta BMC GBBDC

Rail King Rallus elegans BMC GBBDC
Redhead Aythya americana BMC GBBDC

Scaup Greater Aythya marila BMC GBBDC

Scaup Lesser Aythya affinis BMC GBBDC

Swan Trumpeter Cygnus buccinator

Rocky 

Mountain 

pop BMC GBBDC

Swan Trumpeter Cygnus buccinator Interior pop BMC GBBDC

Wigeon American Anas americana BMC GBBDC

Woodcock American Scolopax minor Eastern pop BMC GBBDC

Woodcock American Scolopax minor Central pop BMC GBBDC

b

BMC = Birds of Management Concern are a subset of the species protected

by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (see 50 CFR 10.13) which pose special management

challenges because of a variety of factors (e.g., too few, too many, conflicts with human interests,

societal demands).
Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 177-3 Filed 11/01/12 Page 1 of 5
Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 177-3 Filed 11/01/12 Page 2 of 5
Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 177-3 Filed 11/01/12 Page 3 of 5
Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 177-3 Filed 11/01/12 Page 4 of 5
Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 177-3 Filed 11/01/12 Page 5 of 5