alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Proposed International Finance Corporation (IFC) Investment in

FirstRand Limited of South Africa

May 5, 2014

United States Position

The United States welcomes this opportunity to consider IFC’s proposed investment of up to 

$250 million in Basel III-compliant Tier 2 capital subordinated debt in FirstRand Limited of 

South Africa. 

The United States recognizes IFC’s efforts to forestall a tightening of credit conditions in 

emerging economies, like South Africa, that would have an adverse impact on job creation 

and poverty reduction. Aligned with this goal, the United States notes that one of the central 

aims of this proposed investment is to strengthen the capital structure of FirstRand, a major 

provider of financing to small and medium enterprises (SMEs) with $4.6 billion in loans as of 

end-June 2013, as it continues to comply with South Africa’s recently-adopted enhanced capital 

requirements. The United States further notes that FirstRand’s SME portfolio is expected to 

grow with this investment, to nearly $7 billion by the end of fiscal year 2017. The United States 

believes that improved access to financing for SMEs should be an important part of South 

Africa’s continued development. The United States therefore encourages IFC to stay engaged

with FirstRand to increase access to finance for SMEs in underserved areas that will have the 

greatest impact on poverty and shared prosperity. Given that the Bank is already engaged in 

providing technical assistance to South Africa’s SME sector through its Economic 

Diversification and MSME development project, it also would be useful to understand the 

collaboration and lessons learned between IFC and the Bank in this important sector.

While the United States commends the aims of IFC’s proposed investment — to solidify a 

source of access to financing for South Africa’s SMEs and to develop a strategic 

relationship with a premier emerging-market financial institution with plans to expand 

across Sub-Saharan Africa — this project does, however, contain considerable 

environmental and social risks due to FirstRand’s exposure to high-risk sectors, such as 

mining and infrastructure. The United States continues to urge IFC to strengthen its approach 

to the assessment and disclosure of environmental and social risks in financial intermediary 

investments, particularly those that are Category A. Therefore, the United States wishes to be 

recorded as abstaining on this proposed investment. The United States encourages IFC and 

FirstRand to work closely together and take all appropriate precautions to mitigate the 

environmental and social risks of any Category A projects, going forward. 

With these comments, the United States wishes IFC and FirstRand success in their attempts to 

diversify South Africa’s economy so as to improve growth and reduce poverty and inequality.
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Calzena WHITEHEAD, Appellee.

No. 77-1559.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 27, 1977.

Richard E. Gerstein, State’s Atty. and George Volsky, Asst. State’s Atty., for appellant.

Michael P. Gale, Miami, for appellee.

Before NATHAN and KEHOE, JJ., and CHARLES CARROLL (Ret.), Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Calzena Whitehead was charged by information with manslaughter. She filed a sworn motion to dismiss under Fla.R. Crim.P. 3.190(c)(4), alleging that there were no material disputed facts and that the undisputed facts did not establish a prima facie case of guilt against her. The State, under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.190(d), filed a sworn traverse and demurrer in which it specifically denied material allegations contained in the motion to dismiss. The trial court heard argument on defendant’s motion to dismiss and the State’s traverse and demurrer and granted the motion to dismiss, whereupon the State took this appeal challenging the trial court’s order of dismissal.

Generally, upon the filing of a traverse or demurrer to a motion to dismiss, Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.190(d) is controlling:

> “(d) Traverse or Demurrer. The State may traverse or demur to a motion to dismiss which alleges factual matters. . A motion to dismiss under paragraph (c)(4) of this rule *shall be denied if*the State files a traverse which denies under oath a material fact alleged in the motion to dismiss.” (emphasis added)

We hold that the trial court committed reversible error in granting the defendant’s sworn motion to dismiss in the face of the State’s traverse which specifically denied material facts alleged by defendant. Accordingly, the cause is

Reversed and remanded with directions to reinstate the information.
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Jamie Lou ANDERSON, Appellee.

No. 73-958.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 22, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### The CITY OF PALM BAY, etc., Petitioner, v. INTERSTATE ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC., etc., Respondent.

No. 42380.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 20, 1972.

Certiorari denied. 259 So.2d 178.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, ADKINS and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CRESTED CORP. FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED FEBRUARY 28, 1997 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000025657
<NAME> CRESTED CORP.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1997
<CASH>                                          62,300
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  409,100
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     82,300
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,033,900
<PP&E>                                       5,224,900
<DEPRECIATION>                             (2,972,200)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,671,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,170,500
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,100
<OTHER-SE>                                   (298,800)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,671,000
<SALES>                                         75,300
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               681,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   74,300
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,224,900
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              22,500
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (810,600)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (810,600)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (810,600)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
KPMG LLP LOGO






                          Independent Auditors' Consent


The Stockholders and the
   Board of Directors of
   JSB Financial, Inc.:


We consent to incorporation  by reference in the  Registration  Statements (Nos.
33-37217,  33-36491  and  33-36490)  on Form S-8 of JSB  Financial,  Inc. of our
report  dated  January 28,  1999,  relating to the  consolidated  statements  of
financial  condition of JSB  Financial,  Inc. and  subsidiary as of December 31,
1998 and 1997, and the related consolidated statements of operations, changes in
stockholders'  equity  and cash  flows for each of the  years in the  three-year
period ended December 31, 1998, which report is incorporated by reference to the
December 31, 1998 Annual Report on Form 10-K of JSB Financial, Inc.



                                    KPMG LLP


Melville, New York
March 29, 1999
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

Wniteb ~tate~ (!Court of ~peaI1i

for tbe jfeberaI (!Circuit

LOUIS KERLINSKY,

Claimant-Appellant,

v.

ERIC K. SHINSEKI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS

AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee.

2012-7118

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for

Veterans Claims in case no. 09-1934, Judge Frank Q.

Nebeker.

ON MOTION

Before PROST, MAYER, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

ORDER

Louis Kerlinsky moves for reconsideration of this

court's August 13, 2012 order in part dismissing his

appeal as untimely and in part summarily affirming the
LOUIS KERLINSKY V. SHINSEKI 2

judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.

Upon consideration thereof,

IT Is ORDERED THAT:

The motion is denied.

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Jan Horbaly

Jan Horbaly

Clerk

s26
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

839 

KA 14-01533 

PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., CENTRA, NEMOYER, TROUTMAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

RAYSEAN GOSS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (CAITLIN M. CONNELLY OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

MICHAEL J. FLAHERTY, JR., ACTING DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO, FOR

RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County

(Christopher J. Burns, J.), rendered June 24, 2014. The judgment

convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession

of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts) and

criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree (two counts). 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him

upon his plea of guilty of two counts each of criminal possession of a

controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16 [1],

[12]) and criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree 

(§ 220.50 [2], [3]). Defendant’s conviction stems from the seizure of

cocaine and drug paraphernalia during a search of his residence

conducted by parole officers and police officers. Defendant’s parole

officer testified at the suppression hearing that he made the

determination to search defendant’s residence based on defendant’s

recent parole violations and the fact that, despite being unemployed,

on one occasion he possessed a large sum of cash (see People v

Maynard, 67 AD3d 1391, 1391, lv denied 14 NY3d 890). We agree with

Supreme Court that the search was “rationally and reasonably related

to the performance of the parole officer’s duty” (People v Huntley, 43

NY2d 175, 181; see People v Escalera, 121 AD3d 1519, 1520, lv denied

24 NY3d 1083). Contrary to defendant’s contention, the fact that

another parole officer and police officers assisted defendant’s parole

officer during the search did not render it a police operation (see

People v Adams, 126 AD3d 1405, 1405-1406, lv denied 25 NY3d 1158). 

Defendant’s remaining contentions regarding the search of his

residence were not raised in his motion papers or before the

suppression court and are therefore not preserved for our review (see

generally People v Schluter, 136 AD3d 1363, 1363, lv denied 27 NY3d
-2- 839 

KA 14-01533 

1138; People v Fuentes, 52 AD3d 1297, 1298, lv denied 11 NY3d 736). 

We decline to exercise our power to review those contentions as a

matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15

[3] [c]). Finally, the period of postrelease supervision is not

unduly harsh or severe (see People v Singer, 104 AD3d 1311, 1312).

Entered: October 7, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
## NUMBER 13

- 20

- 00 457

- C V

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI



## – EDINBURG

JAMES BROWN AND

EARLINE DAVIS

- BROWN

, Appellant s

,

v.

JERROD WAYNE PILLANS

, Appellee.

On appeal from the 1 3 th District Court

of N avarro C ounty, Texas.



## MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and T i jerina

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Tijerina

This matter is before the Court on the appellants ’ failure to file a brief or reasonably

explain the failure to do so. 1 On February 17, 2021, the Clerk of this Court notified

1 This case was transferred from the Tenth Court of Appeals in Waco to this Court pursuant to a

docket equalization order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. See T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . § 73.001.2

a ppellants that their brief d id not comp ly with T exas Rules of Appellate Procedure

9.4(i)(3), 38.1(b), (d), (g), and (k) , and the brief was therefore marked rec eived rather than

filed on February 12, 2021

. The Clerk requested that appellants submit an amended brief

within ten days from the date of the notice. Additionally, in consideration of the withdrawal

of appellants ’ attorney, on February 26, 2021, this court ordered appellants ’ brief due

March 1 , 2021

. The notice warned that if the brie f w as not timely filed

, the appeal was

subject to dismissal for want of prosecution under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure

38.8(a)(1), unless within ten days from the date of the notice , appellant s reasonably

explained the failure and the appellee was not significantly injured b y the appellants ’

failure to timely file a brief. Appellant s ha ve not responded to this notice and ha ve failed

to either reasonably explain their failure to file a brief, file a motion for extension of time

to file a brief, or file a brief.

Moreover, o n Ma rch 3, 20 21 , the Clerk of this Court notified appellant s , in

accordance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3(c), that we would dismiss this

appeal unless the $ 20 5.00 filing fee was paid within ten days of the letter

. See T EX

. R.

A PP

. P

. 42.3(c). Appellant s ha ve not responded to the notice from the Clerk or paid the

$ 20 5.00 filing fee. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 5, 12.1(b).

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution

. Se e id . 38.8(a),

42.3(b).

JAIME TIJERINA

Justice

Delivered and filed on the

25th day of March , 202 1

.
Treasury approves Wisconsin’s plan to invest $33 million of CPF funding in 

Digital Connectivity Technology projects that aim to address gaps in digital 

equity, affordability, and broadband adoption.

Capital Projects Fund Award Fact Sheet

Wisconsin

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

 Program Summary: $33 million for Digital Connectivity Technology (17% of CPF allocation)

 Program Description: Wisconsin’s Device Deployment and 

Digital Navigators program will enable non-profits and other 

eligible entities to apply for grants to deploy devices, including 

computers, laptops, and tablets to targeted households 

through a loan program. The loaned devices will be 

internet-enabled devices that allow users to engage in work, 

education, and health monitoring. Subrecipients will provide digital literacy training and 

support to ensure that users are able to connect the device to the internet and make full use 

of the technology. In addition, grants can also be used to purchase and install equipment 

necessary to deploy Wi-Fi in multi-dwelling units with low-income or low adoption households 

to provide affordable internet access.

 Key State Contact: Public Service Commission of Wisconsin

Wisconsin Capital Projects Fund Program Overview

For More Information: 

For Media Inquiries: 

For General Inquiries:

Please visit www.treasury.gov/CPF

Please contact the U.S. Treasury Press Office at (202) 622-2960

Please email CapitalProjectsFund@treasury.gov for additional information

Wisconsin estimates 

this program will 

serve more than 

20,000 households.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Otho H. LINNER.

No. 59941.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 23, 1977.

Rehearings Denied Jan. 27, 1978.

Nesib Nader, Shreveport, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Henry N. Brown, Jr., Dist. Atty., Roland V. McKneely, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appel-lee. •

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

Rehearing denied. Defendant’s contention of ineffective counsel may be raised through application for habeas corpus relief filed in the district court. *State*v. *Collins,*350 So.2d 590 (La.1977).
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2065 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2065

 To amend section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, to require 
that annual budget submissions of the President to Congress provide an 
  estimate of the cost per taxpayer of the deficit and of the public 
                                 debt.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 18, 2021

  Mr. Stewart (for himself and Mr. Crenshaw) introduced the following 
        bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Budget

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, to require 
that annual budget submissions of the President to Congress provide an 
  estimate of the cost per taxpayer of the deficit and of the public 
                                 debt.

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

SECTION 1. REQUIREMENT IN BUDGET SUBMISSION WITH RESPECT TO THE COST 
              PER TAXPAYER OF THE DEFICIT.

    Section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, is amended by 
adding at the end the following:
            ``(40)(A) in the case of a fiscal year in which the budget 
        is projected to result in a deficit, an estimate of the pro 
        rata cost of such deficit for taxpayers who will file 
        individual income tax returns for taxable years ending during 
        such fiscal year; and
            ``(B) in the case of any fiscal year, an estimate of the 
        pro rata cost of the public debt for taxpayers who will file 
        individual income tax returns for taxable years ending during 
        such fiscal year.''.
                                 <all>
```
# Web_Sep
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

February 19, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

135422 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

STATE TREASURER,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 135422 

 COA: 278820 

Bay CC: 06-003120-CZ

GARY GROSSNICKLE,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 30, 2007 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

0211 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

February 19, 2008 

 Clerk
#### Don J. LARSEN, Appellant, v. Vivian A. LARSEN, Appellee.

No. 69-216.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 12, 1970.

Rehearing Denied March 5, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 242 (Wednesday, December 17, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 66051]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-32856]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Yakima Provincial Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of upcoming meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Yakima Provincial Advisory Committee will meet on January 
28, 1998, at the Cle Elum Ranger District office, 803 W. 2nd Street, 
Cle Elum, Washington. The meeting will begin at 9:00 a.m. and end at 
3:00 p.m. The meeting will focus on watershed restoration, Snoqualmie 
Pass Adaptive Management Area, and an update on Naches Ranger District 
projects. All Yakima Province Advisory Committee meetings are open to 
the public. Interested citizens are welcome to attend.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Direct questions regarding this meeting to Paul Hart, Designated 
Federal Official, USDA, Wenatchee National Forest, 215 Melody Lane, 
Wenatchee, Washington 98801, 509-662-4335.

    Dated: December 3, 1997.
Sonny J. O'Neal,
Forest Supervisor, Wenatchee National Forest.
[FR Doc. 97-32856 Filed 12-16-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
#### ELKINS FORD SALES, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois corporation, Appellee.

No. Q-445.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Dec. 12, 1972.

Jack A. Harnett, of Harnett & Curry, Quincy, for appellant.

J. Lewis Hall, of Hall, Hartwell & Hall, Tallahassee, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. Princess Fair Blouse, Inc. v. Viking Sprinkler Company, 186 F.Supp. 1 (D.C., N.C.1960); Moore, 3 Fed.Practice, § 13.13 (1968) ; Wright & Miller, 6 Fed. Practice & Procedure, § 1410 (1971); Kooman, 2 Fed.Civil Practice, § 13.10 (1969).

SPECTOR, C. J., and WIGGINTON and RAWLS, JJ., concur.
#### Fred J. FLESCH, Petitioner, v. METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Respondent.

No. 40590.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 4, 1971.

Certiorari denied. 240 So.2d 504.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON and DEKLE, JJ., concur.

McCAIN, J., dissents.
EXHIBIT 11.2 CPI CORP.
COMPUTATION OF LOSS PER COMMON SHARE - BASIC
(Unaudited) Twelve Weeks Ended May 1, 2004 and April 26, 2003 Twelve Weeks EndedMay, 1
  2004
  
  April 26,
  2003Basic:Net loss applicable to common shares:Net loss
  
  $
  (8,798,212
  )
  $
  (2,729,790
  )Shares:Weighted average number of common shares
  outstanding
  
  
  18,366,028
  
  
  18,339,082Less: 
  Treasury stock - weighted average
  
  
  (10,265,456
  )
  
  (10,238,303
  )Weighted average number of common and
  common equivalent shares outstanding
  
  
  8,100,572
  
  
  8,100,779Net loss per
  common and common equivalent shares:Net loss
  
  $
  (1.09
  )
  $
  (0.34
  )
#### Jim GRIM, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-739.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 21, 1974.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Okeechobee County; James E. Alderman, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.