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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         931,000
<SECURITIES>                                   115,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                  103,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    401,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,550,000
<PP&E>                                      10,245,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               9,657,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,931,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,392,000
<BONDS>                                      1,345,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     989,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,657,000
<SALES>                                      1,970,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,970,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,216,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             121,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (367,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (367,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (13.43)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                             5
<LEGEND>

This schedule  contains  summary  financial  information  extracted  from UNITED
INVESTORS  GROWTH  PROPERTIES II 1999 Fourth  Quarter 10-KSB and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such 10-KSB filing.

</LEGEND>

<CIK>                                 0000862114
<NAME>                                UNITED INVESTORS GROWTH PROPERTIES II
<MULTIPLIER>                                  1,000


<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                     DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                        JAN-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          648
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   253
<ALLOWANCES>                                      0
<INVENTORY>                                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  0 <F1>
<PP&E>                                        8,668
<DEPRECIATION>                               (2,261)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                7,464
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             0 <F1>
<BONDS>                                       6,232
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<COMMON>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      977
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  7,464
<SALES>                                           0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              1,762
<CGS>                                             0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              1,753
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              516
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   0
<INCOME-TAX>                                      0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               0
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  53
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                      2
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.10)<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0
<FN>

<F1> Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet. <F2> Multiplier is 1.

</FN>


</TABLE>
**Exhibit
        32.1**
 
 
 **CERTIFICATION
        PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**
 
 In
        connection with the Quarterly Report of Croff Enterprises, Inc. (the "Company")
        on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities
        and
        Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gerald L. Jensen,
        Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,
        as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
        that:
 
 (1)  This
        Report on Form 10-Q
        for the period ended June 30, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of
        section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 (2)  I
        further certify to the
        best of my knowledge that the information contained in the Report fairly
        presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
        operations of Croff Enterprises, Inc.
 
 
 
 Date:
        August 20,
        2007                                                                           By
/s/ Gerald L. Jensen
 Gerald
        L. Jensen,
        President,
 Chief
        Executive Officer
 
 
 
 
 Acting
      Chief Financial
      Officer
#### SOBEL v. SELENKOW.

No. 38423.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 218 So.2d 485.
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13** 
**- 7686** 

MICHAEL T. SCOTT, JR. , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. KEN KODAMA, Chemist/Analyst ,
Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. Richard D. Bennett , District Judge. ( 1:13

- cv
- 02279

- RDB )

Submitted : February 20, 2014 Decided: February 26, 2014

Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Michael T. Scott, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Michael T. Scott, Jr., appeals the district court ’ s

order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ( 2006 ) complaint against

Ken Kodama . We hav e reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court ’s order

.
Scott v. Kodama , No. 1:13

- cv
- 02279

- RDB ( D. Md. Sept. 30, 2013 ).
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately prese nted in the materials before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Ralph E. FISCHER, Appellant, v. Marguerite E. FISCHER, Appellee.

No. 71-108.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Aug. 4, 1971.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 29, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Christopher PROFFIT, Appellant, v. Larry ROWLEY, Acting Superintendent of NECC; Douglas Prudden, ASOM; Stacy Hinch, Correctional Officer II, NECC; Mary Riorden, Assistant Superintendent, NECC; Unknown Keffier, Caseworker Assistant Housing Seven, NECC; Unknown Keiffer, Functional Unit Manager, Housing Unit #1; B. Board, C.O.I. #42350, Appellees.

No. 02-2354.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted July 19, 2002.

Filed Aug. 22, 2002.

Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, MURPHY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Missouri inmate Christopher Proffit appeals the district court’s pre-service dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Mr. Proffit seeks leave to proceed without prepayment of fees, the district court having certified that his appeal was not taken in good faith. We grant Mr. Proffit leave to appeal in forma pauperis and leave to the district court the details of calculating the initial partial appellate filing fee, and the collection of the balance of the $105 appellate filing fee. *See Henderson v. Norris,*129 F.3d 481, 484-85 (8th Cir. 1997).

Further, we affirm the dismissal of all of Mr. Proffit’s claims except for his allegations that defendants retaliated against him in various specified ways in connection with his lawsuit against prison officials. On remand, Mr. Proffit should be directed to amend his complaint to identify: (1) each person he is naming as a defendant; and (2) what retaliatory act each defendant took against him.
#### Edgar WILDER et al., Petitioners, v. Mary Emma WILSON et al., and the Industrial Relations Commission, Respondents.

No. 43422.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 9, 1973.

Rehearing Denied June 27, 1973.

Certiorari dismissed.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur.

DEKLE, J., dissents.
#### Bennie MOORE, Sr., et ux. v. The TRAVELERS INDEMNITY CO. et al.

No. 61330.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 10, 1978.

In re: June R. Hill, State of La. and Travelers Ins. Co., applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit. Parish of Caddo. 352 So.2d 270.

Denied.
City o/filan2ogordo 

OFFICE OF THE MAYOR 

1376 E. NINTH STREET • ALAMOGORDO, NEW MEXKO 88310-5838 • (575) 439-4205 FAX (575) 439-4396 

December 16, 20\1 

Docket Operations 

M-30, West Building Gr<:mnd Floor, Room W12-140 

1200 New Jersey A venue SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

I am writing this letter in response to the tentative order regarding the termination of the EAS 

Subsidy and to show cause why the Department should not terminate the eligibility of 

Alamogordo/Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico under the Essential Air Service (EAS) 

program and allow Pacific Wings L.L.C., d/b/a New Mexico Airlines (New Mexico Airlines), to 

suspend service at the community. 

I believe that conformance to Public Law 112-27, signed into law on August 5, 2011, can be 

obtained in this community by modifying Order 2011-7-2 with Pacific Wings L.L.C., d/b/a New 

Mexico Airlines. The modification could allow far the reduction in the frequency of flights to 

save operational expenses, roundtrip service to a different hub that will increase passenger traffic, 

.or a combination of both. 

Many communities have air service to various locations that do not offer roundtrip service on a 

daily basis to hubs. Also, roundtrip service to a hub that offers citizens more travel options 

including international destina~ions would increase passenger traffic which would lower the 

average subsidy per passenger. 

The German Air Force Flying Training Center has recently announced that the Euro Fighter will 

be training at Holloman Air Force Base in the near future. This will increase the number of 

Luftwaffe personnel and dependants by 30% in Alan10gordo. The Commander of the German 

Air Force Flying Training Center has indicated that a direct flight to a hub from the White 

Sands Regional Airport that has international connections would be heavily utilized by their 

personnel and dependants. Phoenix International Airport has been mentioned as a preferred 

hub. 

Please consider modifying Order 2011-7-2 to allow conformance with Public Law 112-27 to 

continue the Essential Air Service Subsidy for Alamogordo/Holloman Air Force Base New 

Mexico. 

Sincerely, 

~ 

Mayor, 

R:r: Gnggs 

City 

~;- of Alamogordo 

I 

· .. . ) 

·· i 

; ,_ J _ . :..: 

..... ... 
Cc: Honorable Susana Martinez, Governor 

Honorable Jeff Bingaman, United States Senator 

Honorable Tom Udall, United States Senator 

Honorable Steve Pearce, United States Congressman 

Honorable Zachary J. Cook, New Mexico Representative 

Honorable Yvette Herrell, New Mexico Representative 

Honorable Dennis J. Kintigh, New Mexico Representative 

Honorable Rick Little, New Mexico Representative 

Honorable Vernon D. Asbill, New Mexico Senator 

Honorable William F. Burt, New Mexico Senator 

Alamogordo City Commission
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

JOSE TORRES

, Appellant,

v.

BANK OF NEW YORK As Trustee For THE CERTIFICATE HOLDERS

CWABS, INC. ASSET BACKED CERTIFICATES SERIES 2006

- 26
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 17

- 1625

[ August 22, 2018 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Joel T. Lazarus , Judge; L.T. Case No. 07

- 026252 CACE (14)

.

Kendrick Almaguer and Peter Ticktin of The Ticktin Law Group, P.L.L.C., Deerfield Beach, for appellant.

J. Kirb y McDonough of Quarles & Brady, LLP, Tampa, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Jose Torres (“the h omeowner”) appeals an order denying his motion for attorney s ’ fees and costs rendered in favor of the Ban k of New York as Trustee (“the b ank”) following an involunt ary dismissal of the bank’s foreclosure action. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

First, we affirm the denial of attorneys’ fees. B ecause the homeowner prevailed on an argument that the bank failed to prove entitlement to

enforce the note and mortgage

, the homeowner cannot now seek to take advantage of the fee provisions of the note and mortgage. See Sabido v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon , 238 So. 3d 867, 868

- 69 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) ; Nationstar Mortg. LLC v. Glass , 219 So. 3d 896, 898 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017), review granted , No. SC17

- 1387, 2018 WL 2069328 (Fla. Feb. 13, 2018).

However, we reverse the denial of costs. Florida Rule of Civil

Procedure 1.420 provides in relevant part, “Costs in any action dismissed under this rule shall be assessed and j udgment for costs entered in that action, once the action is concluded as to the party seeking taxation of2 c osts.” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.420(d); see also § 57.041(1), Fla. Stat. (2017) (“The party recovering judgment shall recover all his or her legal costs

a nd charges which shall be included in the judgment . . . .”). Because the case was involuntarily dismissed, the homeowner is entitled to

taxable costs.

In this situation, any costs awardable to the homeowner flow from

r ule 1.420 and not from the subject mortgage and/or note.

We therefore remand for the trial court to consider what costs should

be awarded as authorized by the Uniform Guidelines for Taxation of

Costs in Civil Actions

. 1

Affirmed in part; reversed in part

.

G ERBER
, C.J., G ROSS and C IKLIN
, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

1 Fla. R. Civ. P. Taxation of Costs.
# U n i ted S t a te s C ou r t o f Appe a l s F OR T HE D IS TRICT OF C OLUM BIA C IRCUI T

___ ___ ___ ___ 

## No. 22-5326 September Term, 2023 1: 22-c v -023 75-UNA Filed O n: Novembe r 14, 20 23 Harry Nie, App ellant
v . Rebe cca B each Sm ith, Ju dge, e t al.,

App ellees
ON A PPE A L FROM THE UNITED STA TES DIS TRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BEFORE: Hend erson , Pillard, and Pa n, Circuit Ju dges J U D G M E N T T his ap pea l was co nside red o n th e reco rd f rom the United Sta tes District Cou rt for th e District of

Colum bia a nd on the brief f iled b y ap pellan t. S ee Fed. R. Ap p. P

. 34(a )(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34 (j). It is ORDERED A ND A DJUDGED tha t th e d istrict court’s o rder f iled Oct obe r 24, 202 2 b e a f

f irmed . T he district cou rt correctly conclud ed tha t it lacks jurisdiction to rev iew the de cisions o f

oth er fede ral cou rts. Sm alls v. United S tate s, 47 1 F.3 d 1 86, 192 (D.C. Cir. 200 6). A dditio nally, app ellantis no t en titled to t he injunct ive relief he seeks, as a ppe llate a nd post -judgmen t review of his co nviction provided an ade quate reme dy at law fo r his claim s. Youn ger v . Harris, 40 1 U.S . 37 , 43 -44 (19 71) (equita ble relief no t available if

an ad equate rem edy at la w exists); Pugh v. Ashcroft, 1 16 Fed. App ’x 28 7, 2 88 (D.C. Cir. 2004 ) (holding th at “e quitable relief is available o nly in the abse nce of

ad equate rem edie s at law” and the ap pellan t ha d “an ad equate legal reme dy fo r any judicial e rror or misco ndu ct in t he form of po st-judgme nt p rocee dings in the ap prop riate co urts”) (interna l quotat ion m arks om itted ).

# U n i ted S t a te s C ou r t o f Appe a l s F OR T HE D IS TRICT OF C OLUM BIA C IRCUI T

___ ___ ___ ___ 

## No. 22-5326 September Term, 2023
Pursua nt t o D.C. Circuit Ru le 36 , th is dispo sition will no t be pu blished . T he Clerk is directe d to w ithho ld issua nce of the m and ate he rein u ntil seven d ays af ter reso lution of an y tim ely petition for rehe aring or pe tition for rehe aring en ban c. S ee Fed. R. Ap p. P. 4 1(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41

. Per Curiam
FOR THE COURT: Mark J. La nger, Clerk BY: /s/ Daniel J. Reidy Depu ty Cl erk

Page 2
THE AXTCBRNEY GENERAL 

OF TEXAS 

February 25, 1976 

The Honorable William A. Webb Opinion No. B-787 

Acting Commissioner 

Coordinating Board Re: Whether the CoorainTexas College and University ating Board's policy 

Sy8tenl statement on academic 

P. O:Sox 12780, Capitol Station freedom and responsibilAustin, Texa8 70711~ ity is a mandate or a 

recommendation. 

Dear Commissioner Webb: 

You have requested our opinion regarding a portion of 

section 61.057 of the Education Code, which reads, in pertinent part: 

To achieve excellence in the teaching 

of students at institutions and agencies 

of higher education, the [Coordinating 

Bloard shall: 

(1) develop and recommend: ..~. 

. . . 

(E) minimum standards for 

academic freedom, academic 

responsibility and tenure. . . . 

You ask whether an institution of higher education is required 

under this provision to adopt the terms of the Board's 

policy statement on academic freedom. 

p. 3319 
The Honorable William A. Webb - page 2 H-787 

Although the statute'clearly requires the Coordinating 

Board to "develop and recommend" minimum standards, it imposes 

no obligation upon any institution to adopt those standards. 

The use of the term "recommend" leaves no room for doubt. Its 

primary meaning is advisory rather than obligatory. In re -- 

Estate of Ho an, 146 N.W.Zd 257, 259 (Iowa 1966). See also 

mgg)$& ~~~~~B~~~~d:~:t~pdv~'~~l~~~~~ 

P.2a 943, 946.M. 6);oie v. Gates,116 Cal. Rptr. 

172, 170 (Ct. App. 1974). &i~is~ our opinion that an 

institution of higher education is not required by section 

61:057 of the Education Code to adopt the terms of the 

Coordinating Board's policy statement on academic freedom. 

We express no view on your second question which asks 

whether or in what manner the Board should modify the langage 

of its policy statement. 

SUMMARY 

An institution of higher education is 

not required by section 61.057 of the 

Education Code to adopt the terms of 

the Coordinating Soard's policy statement on academic freedom. 

Very truly yours, 

&PROVED: 

Opinion Committee 

jwb 

p. 3320
### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 12-20720 Summary Calendar

CATHY CATCHING, Plaintiff-Appellant v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:11-CV-1693
Before WIENER, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Plaintif f

- Ap p ellant Cathy C atching appeals t he judgment of the district court dismissing her action based on her claim of disability under Title II of the S o c i a l Security Act, which was denied initially b y the Administrativ e L a w J u d g e . W e h a v e r eviewed t h e record on appeal, including, inter alia , the extensive transcript and t he 64-page Memorandum Recommendation of t he Magistrate U n i t e d S t a te s C o u rt o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D April 10, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5, the court has determ ined that this op inion s hould not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 12-20720 Document: 00512204516 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/10/2013No. 12-20720

Judge which patiently sets out in extreme detail the relevant facts and findings regarding Catching’s conditions, principal among w hich are chronic fatigue syndrome and fybromyalgia. In t he end, we find no reversible error, concluding that, as t he Commissioner’s brief summarizes, “ Catching fails to prove that her

a l l eged chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia equated t o medically d e t e r minable impairments” and “fails to point to a ny medical evidence tha t suggests chronic fatigue syndrome or fybromyalgia caused additional functional limitations n o t a l r e a d y included in the ALJ’s residual functional capacity finding.” AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 12-20720 Document: 00512204516 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/10/2013
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 246 (Tuesday, December 23, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 67042]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-33531]


========================================================================
Notices
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules 
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings 
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, 
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency 
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents 
appearing in this section.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 23, 1997 / 
Notices

[[Page 67042]]


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

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

DATE AND TIME: Friday, January 9, 1998, 9:30 a.m.

PLACE: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 624 Ninth Street, N.W., Room 
540, Washington, DC 20425.

 STATUS:

Agenda

I. Approval of Agenda
II. Approval of Minutes of December 5, 1997 Meeting
III. Announcements
IV. Staff Director's Report
V. Project Planning
VI. Future Agenda Items.

CONTACT PERSON FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Barbara Brooks, Press and 
Communications (202) 376-8312.
Stephanie Y. Moore,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 97-33531 Filed 12-19-97; 9:23 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-00-M