alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED
      STATES


SECURITIES
      AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Washington,
      D.C. 20549




FORM
      8-K




CURRENT
      REPORT




Pursuant
      to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934




Date
      of
      Report (date of earliest event reported):   November 13,
      2007




VALLEY
      COMMERCE BANCORP


(Exact
      name of registrant as specified in its charter)




California
            333-118883
            46-1981399(State
                or other jurisdiction
              of
                incorporation)
            (Commission
                File Number)
            (IRS
                Employer
              Identification
                No.)





200
                South Court Street
              Visalia,
                California
            93291(Address
                of principal executive offices)
            (Zip
                Code)







Registrant’s
      telephone number, including area
      code:  (559) 622-9000




N/A


(Former
      name or former address, if changed since last report)






Check
      the appropriate box below if the
      Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation
      of
      the registrant under any of the following provisions:




oWritten
      communications
      pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR
      230.425)




oSoliciting
      material pursuant
      to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR
      240.14a-12)




oPre-commencement
      communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR
      240.14d-2(b))




oPre-commencement
      communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR
      240.13e-4(c))







Item
      8.01                        Other
      Events





On
      November 13, 2007, the registrant
      issued the press release attached hereto as Exhibit 99 and incorporated herein
      by reference. The press release announces a common stock repurchase
      plan.







Item
      9.01.                     
 Financial Statements and Exhibits





(c)              The
      exhibit list required by this Item is incorporated by reference to the exhibit
      index filed as part of this report.











SIGNATURES




Pursuant
      to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant
      has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned
      hereunto duly authorized.




Dated:
                November 19, 2007
            Valley
                Commerce BancorpBy:
            /s/Roy
                O. EstridgeRoy O. Estridge
              Executive Vice President and
              Chief Financial Officer















EXHIBIT
      INDEX




99
            Press
                release dated November 13, 2007 announcing stock repurchase
                program.
#### Sam MANNING, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 76-1709.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Sept. 13, 1977.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Craig S. Barnard, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Marsha G. Madorsky, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CROSS, ANSTEAD and LETTS, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1474 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1474

  To amend the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 to clarify the Permanent 
University Fund arbitrage exception and to increase from 20 percent to 
 30 percent the amount of securities and obligations benefitting from 
                             the exception.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 22, 2005

 Mrs. Hutchison (for herself and Mr. Cornyn) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 to clarify the Permanent 
University Fund arbitrage exception and to increase from 20 percent to 
 30 percent the amount of securities and obligations benefitting from 
                             the exception.

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

SECTION 1. MODIFICATION OF SPECIAL ARBITRAGE RULE FOR CERTAIN FUNDS.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 648 of the Deficit 
Reduction Act of 1984 (98 Stat. 941) is amended to read as follows:
            ``(1) such securities or obligations are held in a fund--
                    ``(A) which, except to the extent of the investment 
                earnings on such securities or obligations, cannot be 
                used, under State constitutional or statutory 
                restrictions continuously in effect since October 9, 
                1969, through the date of issue of the bond issue, to 
                pay debt service on the bond issue or to finance the 
                facilities that are to be financed with the proceeds of 
                the bonds, or
                    ``(B) the annual distributions from which cannot 
                exceed 7 percent of the average fair market value of 
                the assets held in such fund except to the extent 
                distributions are necessary to pay debt service on the 
                bond issue,''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Paragraph (3) of such section is amended 
by striking ``the investment earnings of'' both places it occurs and 
inserting ``distributions from''.
    (c) Change of Date Relating to Amount Benefitting From Rule.--
Paragraph (4) of such section is amended by striking ``October 9, 
1969'' and inserting ``March 1, 1985''.
    (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall take 
effect on the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1495 

To prohibit Federal agencies from obligating funds for appropriations 

earmarks included only in congressional reports, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 26, 2005 

Mr. MCCAIN (for himself and Mr. COBURN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To prohibit Federal agencies from obligating funds for appropriations earmarks included only in congressional reports, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Obligation of Funds 

5 Transparency Act of 2005’’. 
2 

•S 1495 IS 

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON OBLIGATION OF FUNDS FOR AP2 PROPRIATIONS EARMARKS INCLUDED ONLY 

3 IN CONGRESSIONAL REPORTS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—No Federal agency may obligate 

5 any funds made available in an appropriation Act to im6 plement an earmark that is included in a congressional 

7 report accompanying the appropriation Act, unless the 

8 earmark is also included in the appropriation Act. 

9 (b) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this section: 

10 (1) The term ‘‘assistance’’ includes a grant, 

11 loan, loan guarantee, or contract. 

12 (2) The term ‘‘congressional report’’ means a 

13 report of the Committee on Appropriations of the 

14 House of Representatives or the Senate, or a joint 

15 explanatory statement of a committee of conference. 

16 (3) The term ‘‘earmark’’ means a provision that 

17 specifies the identity of an entity to receive assist18 ance and the amount of the assistance. 

19 (4) The term ‘‘entity’’ includes a State or local20 ity, but does not include any Federal agency. 

21 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shall apply to 

22 appropriation Acts enacted after December 31, 2005. 

Æ
# International Leadership course conducts annual visit to DLA Distribution

/ Published March 31, 2017
NEW CUMBERLAND, Pennsylvania, Students enrolled in the Navy Supply Corps School’s International Leadership Executive Advanced Development course visited DLA Distribution Susquehanna, Pennsylvania on Mar. 21 to discuss the organization’s mission capabilities and tour the Department of Defense’s largest distribution facility.
The foreign military officers, representing Chile, Indonesia, Italy, Pakistan and Tunisia, visited the site as part of an annual Naval Supply Systems Command-sponsored seven-week course, which covers current logistics, supply trends and processes within the U.S. Navy.  

Prior to touring the DLA Distribution Susquehanna, Pennsylvania Eastern Distribution Center, the students discussed how DLA Distribution ensures joint mission readiness globally via its 25 worldwide distribution centers.

During their tour of the 1.7 million square foot warehouse, the students viewed the Air Line of Communication air pallet building operation, Consolidation and Containerization Point, and Radio Frequency Identification tag process.  

The visit is one of many DLA Distribution hosts to allow foreign and domestic service members to gain a first-hand look at the supply chain in action and develop a deeper understanding of DLA Distribution’s global distribution support.
No. 99-7867.

#### Simmons *v.*Taylor, Superintendent, Algoa Correctional Center, et al.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### BWS CREDIT SERVICES, INC., Petitioner, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY and Linda D. Grande, Respondents.

No. II-329.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 29, 1978.

Richard C. McFarlain and A. Russell Bobo, Tallahassee, of McFarlain & Bobo, for petitioner.

Alex D. Littlefield, Jr., Tallahassee, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner, BWS Credit Services, Inc., seeks review, by Petition for Writ of Certio-rari, of an order of the Industrial Relations Commission dismissing petitioner’s appeal on the basis that same was not timely filed.

The adverse referee’s decision which BWS wished to appeal was mailed to BWS on October 24, 1977, accompanied by a notice stating that: “Last date for filing appeal to Industrial Relations Commission: November 3, 1977”. Petitioner’s notice of appeal to the Industrial Relations Commission was postmarked November 4, 1977. Thus, it is apparent that petitioner’s notice of appeal was untimely filed, rendering the decision of the appeals referee final. See *Florida State University v. Jenkins,*323 So.2d 597 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975).

The Petition for Certiorari is DENIED.

SMITH, Acting C. J., and ERVIN and MELVIN, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1517 Considered and Passed Senate (CPS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1517

  To permit Women's Business Centers to re-compete for sustainability 
                                grants.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 27, 2005

 Ms. Snowe (for herself, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Coleman, and Mr. 
Pryor) introduced the following bill; which was read twice, considered, 
                    read the third time, and passed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To permit Women's Business Centers to re-compete for sustainability 
                                grants.

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

SECTION 1. WOMEN'S BUSINESS CENTERS.

    Section 29(k) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 656(k)) is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``(5) Prior recipients.--Notwithstanding subsection (l)(1), 
        any recipient of a grant under subsection (l) whose 5-year 
        project ended in fiscal year 2004, is eligible to apply to 
        receive the funds for grants to continue Women's Business 
        Centers in sustainability status for fiscal year 2005, made 
        available by Public Law 108-447 (118 Stat. 2911).''.
                                 <all>
```
# DLA delivers Christmas meals to deployed service members

/ Published Dec. 21, 2016
PHILADELPHIA, 
Service members deployed this Christmas will still enjoy a traditional holiday meal, with all the trimmings, thanks to the Defense Logistics AgencyTroop Support.

More than 26,000 pounds of turkey and 530 gallons of nonalcoholic eggnog were delivered in time for troops in Afghanistan to enjoy their holiday meals.
      - 90,727 pounds of turkey
      - 39,970 pounds of beef
      - 22,830 pounds of ham
      - 1,079 gallons of eggnog
      - 4,704 pounds of marshmallows
      - 2,774 gallons of sparkling cocktail juice
      - 27,792 pounds of shrimp
      - 4,812 pies (cherry, pumpkin and more)
      - 477 pumpkin cheesecakes

DLA also ensured that service members at sea and other locations around the world will be able to enjoy their holiday meals. Subsistence employees began gathering holiday meal requirements from the military services in May so that they could order and transport the food in time.

They're already working to ensure service members will be able to celebrate other important events in the near future, including the Super Bowl, Easter and Passover, said Amendolia."While we try to ensure our military members get a great meal every time they go to the dining facility, we're committed to making sure they're not forgotten during those holidays," Amendolia said.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 19 (Wednesday, January 29, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4261-4262]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-2167]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

[OMB Control No. 9000-0076]


Comment Request Entitled Novation/Change of Name Requirements

AGENCIES: Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration 
(GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).


[[Page 4262]]


ACTION: Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension to 
an existing OMB clearance (9000-0076).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 
(44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 
Secretariat will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a currently 
approved information collection requirement concerning Novation/Change 
of Name Requirements. This OMB clearance currently expires on April 30, 
1997.

DATES: Comment Due Date: March 31, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect 
of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing 
this burden, or obtaining a copy of the justification, should be 
submitted to: General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (MVRS), 
18th & F Streets, NW, Room 4037, Washington, DC 20405. Please cite OMB 
Control No. 9000-0076, Novation/Change of Name Requirements, in all 
correspondence.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Linda Klein, Federal Acquisition 
Policy Division, GSA (202) 501-3775.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Purpose

    When a firm performing under Government contracts wishes the 
Government to recognize (1) a successor in interest to these contracts 
or (2) a name change, it must submit certain documentation to the 
Government.

B. Annual Reporting Burden

    Public reporting burden for this collection of information is 
estimated to average 27.5 minutes per response, including the time for 
reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and 
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the 
collection of information.
    The annual reporting burden is estimated as follows: Respondents, 
1,000; responses per respondent, 1; total annual responses, 1,000; 
preparation hours per response, .458; and total response burden hours, 
458.

    Dated: January 23, 1997.
Sharon A. Kiser,
FAR Secretariat.
[FR Doc. 97-2167 Filed 1-28-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-EP-P
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-10661

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus

PAUL HENRY FELLS,

 Defendant-Appellant.

_______________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:94-CR-110-A

_______________________________________

March 31, 1997

Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Paul Henry Fells appeals the use of two Arkansas state convictions for possession of

marihuana with the intent to deliver to enhance his new sentence on remand for being a felon in

possession of a firearm in and affecting interstate commerce. Following a de novo review, we

find that the district court correctly enhanced Fells’ sentence pursuant to the enhancement
 

provision of 21 § 924(e)(1) and U.S.S.G. § 4B1.4(a). See United States v. Garcia, 962 F.2d 479,

481 (5th Cir. 1992).

Fell’s motion for return of property constituting an original exhibit and for substitution of

that property with a photocopy is DENIED. This motion is more properly submitted to the

district court on the return of the record to that court following the close of this appeal.

AFFIRMED. MOTION DENIED.
#### Earl M. ALEXANDER, Appellant, v. GATEWAY INSURANCE COMPANY, Paul Rice, Jr., American Mutual Insurance Company of Boston and American Mutual Liability Insurance Company, Appellees.

No. 77-854.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Aug. 2, 1978.

John W. Boult, Tampa, for appellant.

William M. Schneikart, of Miller, McKen-dree & Somers, Tampa, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See Johnson v. Government Employees Insurance Co.,*333 So.2d 542 (Fla.3d DCA 1976).

GRIMES, C. J., and HOBSON and DAN-AHY, JJ., concur.
#### Patricia GOLSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 76-2136.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 20, 1977.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Warren S. Schwartz, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Joel D. Rosenblatt, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before HAVERFIELD, NATHAN and KEHOE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See *Johnson v. State,*308 So.2d 38 (Fla.1975); *State v. Terry,*336 So.2d 65 (Fla.1976).
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-40861 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus LUIS MOSQUERA-MINA, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. B-98-CR-191-1

- - - - - - - - - - June 16, 1999 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Luis Mosquera-Mina appeals his guilty-plea conviction for being an alien previously deported and either attempting to enter or being present in the United States without the consent of the Attorney General. He argues for the first time on appeal that the indictment was constitutionally deficient because it stated that Mosquera-Mina “attempt,” as opposed to attempted, to reenter the United States. Even though the indictment used an incorrect tense of theNo. 98-40861 -2- verb attempt, the indictment specified the date of the alleged offense. The indictment was sufficiently clear, and the technical error did not render the indictment constitutionally deficient. See United States v. Newsom , 483 F.2d 439, 440 (5th Cir. 1974); United States v. Varkonyi , 645 F.2d 453, 456 (5th Cir. 1981). Furthermore, Mosquera-Mina does not challenge the indictment’s allegation that he was found in the United States without the consent of the Attorney General after having been previously deported, and his conviction may be affirmed based upon his plea of guilty to that allegation in the indictment.
See United States v. Harvard , 103 F.3d 412, 420 (5th Cir. 1997).
AFFIRMED.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-30284

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSHUAL HILTON, also known as Joshua Hilton, also known as Josh Hilton,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:17-CR-77-1

Before SMITH, DENNIS, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Joshual Hilton was convicted by a jury of a drug trafficking offense, being 

a felon in possession of a firearm, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of 

a drug trafficking offense, and sentenced to a total of 384 months of 

imprisonment. He now appeals his convictions on the grounds that (1) the 

district court erroneously denied a pretrial motion to disclose the identity of a 

confidential informant (CI), (2) the Government elicited hearsay statements in 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 19, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-30284 Document: 00515421699 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/19/2020
No. 19-30284

2

violation of the Confrontation Clause, and (3) his trial attorney rendered 

ineffective assistance by failing to object to the Confrontation Claus violations.

We review Hilton’s first two issues for plain error because both were 

unpreserved in the district court. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 

135 (2009). Assuming for the sake of argument that there was clear or obvious 

error on either or both grounds, we affirm on the third prong of plain error 

review because Hilton has failed to demonstrate an effect on his substantial 

rights. See id. In light of the significant other evidence of his guilt, including 

Hilton’s high-speed flight from law enforcement officers and admission that 

the drugs and gun found in his residence were his, we are unpersuaded that 

he has shown a reasonable probability that, but for the non-disclosure of the 

CI’s identity or the admission of hearsay statements from the CI, the outcome 

of his trial would have been different. See Molina-Martinez v. United States, 

136 S. Ct. 1338, 1343 (2016). 

As to Hilton’s third issue, we are also unpersuaded that this is one of the 

rare cases in which the record is sufficiently developed to allow this court to 

consider his claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel in the first instance 

on direct appeal. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014). 

Accordingly, we deny that claim without prejudice to Hilton’s right to pursue 

it on collateral review. Id.

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 19-30284 Document: 00515421699 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/19/2020