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

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
                              THIS   SCHEDULE    CONTAINS   SUMMARY    FINANCIAL
                              INFORMATION    EXTRACTED    FROM   THE   FINANCIAL
                              STATEMENTS   AS  OF  DECEMBER   31,  1997  AND  IS
                              QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY BY  REFERENCE  TO SUCH
                              STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                                863557
<NAME>                        SWIFT TRANSPORTATION CO., INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                          1,000
<CURRENCY>                                       US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                  JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                    DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                           1
<CASH>                                                5,726
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        92,587
<ALLOWANCES>                                              0
<INVENTORY>                                           4,509
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    121,944
<PP&E>                                              450,452
<DEPRECIATION>                                      111,917
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      471,134
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                57,776
<BONDS>                                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                                 43
<OTHER-SE>                                          274,132
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        471,134
<SALES>                                             713,638
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    713,638
<CGS>                                                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       639,599
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      (602)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    4,647
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      69,994
<INCOME-TAX>                                         28,350
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  41,644
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                         41,644
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                           .99
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           .96
        
<FN>
EPS-PRIMARY and EPS-DILUTED includes the effect of a 3-for-2 stock split payable
on March 12, 1998.
</FN>

</TABLE>
* 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. 96-10921 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus FESTUS UMUNAKWE OSUAGWU, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 2-96-CR-6-2

- - - - - - - - - - February 21, 1997 Before SMITH, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Court-appointed counsel for Festus Umunakwe Osuagwu has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and we have independently reviewed counsel's brief and the record, and found no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Gerald HATCHER.

No. 60857.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 2, 1977.

In re: Gerald Hatcher, applying for supervisory writs. Parish of Orleans.

*1029Granted. The petition of the relator in the above entitled and numbered case having been duly considered,

It is ordered that a Writ of Certiorari issue herein, directing the Honorable Bernard J. Bagert, Judge of the Criminal District, Court for the Parish of Orleans, to transmit to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, on or before the 16th day of December, 1977, the record in duplicate, or a certified copy of the record in duplicate, of the proceedings complained of by the relator herein, to the end that the validity of said proceedings may be ascertained.

It is further ordered that the aforesaid Judge of said Court and the respondent through counsel- shall show cause, in this court, on a date to be fixed by this court, at 10 o’clock A.M., why the relief prayed for in the petition of the relator should not be granted.
Exhibit 23


            Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm


We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
of Reinhold Industries, Inc. of our report dated March 16, 2006, included in the
2005 Annual Report to Shareholders of Reinhold Industries, Inc.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 333-101589) pertaining to the Amended and Restated Reinhold
Industries, Inc. Stock Incentive Plan and the Registration Statement (Form S-8
No. 333-39925) pertaining to the Reinhold Industries, Inc. Stock Incentive Plan
of our report dated March 16, 2006, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of Reinhold Industries, Inc. incorporated by reference in this Annual
Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2005.

Our audits also included the financial statement schedules of Reinhold
Industries, Inc. listed in Item 15(a). These schedules are the responsibility of
the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on
our audits. In our opinion, the financial statement schedules referred to above,
when considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole,
present fairly in all material respects the information set forth therein.




                          /s/ Ernst & Young LLP


Irvine, California
March 30, 2006
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                      5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                            12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                           JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                             DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          1522
<SECURITIES>                                    1000
<RECEIVABLES>                                   2324
<ALLOWANCES>                                     501
<INVENTORY>                                     1491
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                5544
<PP&E>                                          7896
<DEPRECIATION>                                  2738
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 12540
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           1942
<BONDS>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                          20
<OTHER-SE>                                      5699
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   12540
<SALES>                                        13120
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               13120
<CGS>                                          10074
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  13103
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                3139
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (1963)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     235
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (2198)
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (2198)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 (0.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (0.05) 
        

</TABLE>
258 La. 575

#### Ernie BREWER v. The TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY.

No. 51340.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 13, 1971.

In re: Ernie Brewer applying for certi-orari or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of St. Mary. 244 So.2d 909.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal there is no error in the judgment complained of.

SANDERS, BARHAM, and TATE, JJ., are of the opinion that a writ should he granted because of a conflict in the jurisprudence.
****

**PRIVACY IMPACT ASSESSMENT**

Challenge.gov Government-wide Challenge Platform

###### ****

###### 

###### November 2011

Prepared by:

Office of Citizen Services (OCS-SC)

General Services Administration

****

**PART II. SYSTEM ASSESSMENT**

**A. Data in the System**

**B. Access to the Data**

**C. Attributes of the Data**

**D. Maintenance of Administrative Controls**

# image1.wmf

# oleObject1.bin
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Kevin Arthur BYRNE, Appellee.

No. 73-1013.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 23, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 31, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7351
JAMES W. WATERS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WARDEN, Greensville Correctional Center, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-01-432) Submitted: November 8, 2001 Decided: November 19, 2001 Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James W. Waters, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: James W. Waters seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we denya certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Waters v. Warden , No. CA-01-432 (W.D. Va. July 13, 2001). We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 6575

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. DAVID ANTHONY MCKINNEY , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro

. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. ( 2:93

- cr - 00267

- NCT

- 1; 1:13

- cv - 00745

- NCT

- JLW )

Submitted : October 27, 2017 Decided: November 7, 2017

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD

.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. David Anthony McKinney, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: David Anthony McKinney seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not ap pealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDa niel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322,
336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motio n states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at
484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that McKinney has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny the motion for appointment of counsel and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Motion Granted and Order filed July 27, 2013.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

NO. 14-13-00551-CV

IN RE STATE FARM LLOYDS

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

Trial Court Cause Nos. 2010-61039

11th District Court

Harris County, Texas

ORDER

On June 26, 2013, relator, State Farm Lloyds, filed a petition for writ of 

mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.221. Relator asks this court to 

order the Honorable Mike D. Miller, Judge of the 11th District Court in Harris 

County, Texas, to set aside his order dated June 24, 2013, entered in trial court 

cause number 2010-61039, styled Candelario and Maria Fuentes v. State Farm 

Lloyds. Relator claims the trial court abused its discretion in compelling production 

of irrelevant and burdensome discovery and it has no adequate remedy by appeal.
Relator has also filed a motion for a temporary stay of the trial court’s order. 

See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(b), 52.10. The real parties-in-interest filed a response in 

opposition to the motion. It appears from the facts stated in the petition that 

relator’s request for relief requires further consideration and that relator will be 

prejudiced unless immediate temporary relief is granted. 

We therefore GRANT relator’s motion and ORDER the trial court’s June 

24, 2013 order in trial court cause number 2010-61039, styled Candelario and 

Maria Fuentes v. State Farm Lloyds, STAYED until a final decision by this court 

on relator’s petition for writ of mandamus, or until further order of this court. 

In addition, the court requests the real parties-in-interest, Candelario and 

Maria Fuentes, to file a response to the petition for writ of mandamus on or before 

July 5, 2013.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Frost and Donovan.

2
SALT RIVER 

PIMA-MARICOPA INDIAN COMMUNITY 

10005 East Osborn Road/ Two Waters Building A. Suite 300 / Scottsdale, Arizona 85256-9722 

Phone (480) 362-7400 / Fax (480) 362-7593 

October 2 I, 2022 

VIA EMAIL: TTAC@treasury.gov 

Tribal Treasury Advisory Committee 

Re: Comments to TTAC Guidance Projects 

Needed IRS Guidance on Tribal Business Structures 

Dear TTAC: 

The Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community believes that it would be helpful to 

secure additional guidance on tribal business structures. This issue has been on the IRS 

priorities guidance list for a lengthy period of time, throughout which there have been 

substantial advancements in the manner in which tribes conduct business. For example, 

what started with a request for guidance on tribal corporations has clearly evolved into the 

need for guidance on newer structures such as limited liability companies, as well as joint 

venture projects. 

The Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community strongly believes that future guidance 

on these imp011ant topics must be developed with input from tribes. The Community 

appreciates that the TT AC could assist in bringing these issues to the forefront as well as 

ensure tribal input throughout the process of developing guidance. 

Sincerl~ 

~t/1 j Harvier 

i::~r ent
----

----

| (1)   | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and |
|-----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2)   | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|-----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|           | RESOURCE REAL ESTATE INVESTORS 7, L.P.                              |
|----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
|           | By:  Resource Capital Partners, Inc., its general partner |
|           |                                                                |
| March 24, 2011 | By:       /s/ Kevin M. Finkel    |
|           | Kevin M. Finkel                                                     |
|           | President                                                           |
|           | (Principal Executive Officer)                                       |

----

----
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Escalon Medical Corp. (the
"Company") for the year ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert M. O'Connor,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

1)    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2)    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.

Date: September 28, 2007

/s/    Robert M. O'Connor
---------------------------------------------
Robert M. O'Connor
Chief Financial Officer

                                       77
#### THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, v. Philip S. GOLDIN, Respondent.

No. 39602.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 28, 1970.

Patrick A. Podsaid, Coral Gables, for The Florida Bar, complainant.

Selig I. Goldin, Tench, Goldin & Jones, Gainesville, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Philip S. Goldin seeks review of a referee’s recommendation that he be disbarred from the practice of law for a period of eighteen (18) months and “indefinitely thereafter until he has repaid the money which he has borrowed from an undisclosed source and is free of other debts, except the usual current expenses normally incurred in maintaining a family * * * We are requested to strike the portion of the recommendation which has been specifically quoted above.

The brief of The Florida Bar recites that the “undisclosed source” of funds borrowed by Mr. Goldin is his mother who is making no demand for repayment. The Bar urges no objection to striking the specific language of the referee’s recommendation quoted above.

This lawyer was found guilty of a serious offense, to wit: converting to his own use the trust funds of two clients. He subsequently issued worthless checks in repayment of the debts. His brother finally made restitution for him. A psychiatric report indicates that the respondent is not psychotic but suffers neurotic conflicts which impair his professional responsibilities and will do so for about one year.

Under the circumstances it appears to us that the report of the referee demonstrates a full consideration of all elements involving the matter of prescribing professional *301discipline. While we are willing to strike, on the recommendation of The Florida Bar, the requirement that borrowed sums should be repaid as a condition to respondent’s resumption of the practice of law, we feel that he should not be automatically reinstated at the termination of the period of eighteen months of disbarment. It appears from the record that this man suffers from a neurotic condition which places a cloud over his current professional ability and sense of responsibility to his clients and to the public. We are, therefore, not willing to restore him to the practice of law routinely merely upon the passage of time. Before he is readmitted, it should be shown that he is mentally and temperamentally competent to undertake the grave responsibilities of an attorney.

The findings of the referee are approved. However, the recommendations of the referee are amended to the extent that respondent Philip S. Goldin is hereby suspended from the practice of law for a period of eighteen (18) months from the date this opinion is filed and thereafter until, under the Integration Rule, he can demonstrate his entitlement to reinstatement.

It is so ordered.

ERVIN, C. J., and ROBERTS, THOR-NAL, CARLTON and BOYD, JJ., concur.
#### Wanda S. LEE v. Frank FORE.

No. 47275.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Nov. 5, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Dee. 3, 1973.

James Sideris, Gulfport, for appellant.

Jack Parsons, Wiggins, for appellee.

Appeal from Chancery Court, Harrison County; Frank Alexander, Chancellor.

Before GILLESPIE, C. J., and PATTERSON, INZER, WALKER and BROOM, JJ.

Affirmed.
#### John Patrick MURPHY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-140.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Aug. 11, 1970.

*321John Patrick Murphy, in pro. per.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This court, proceeding in the manner outlined and recommended by the Supreme Court of the United States in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, having deferred ruling on a motion of the public defender to withdraw as counsel for the indigent defendant-appellant, and having furnished appellant with a copy of the public defender’s memorandum brief, and having allowed the appellant a reasonable specified time within which to raise any points that he chose in support of this appeal, and the appellant having filed his response thereto, on consideration thereof upon full examination of the proceedings we conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Whereupon, the public defender’s said motion to withdraw is granted, and the order or judgment appealed is hereby affirmed.
#### The TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY v. James T. LOGAN, Jr., et ux.

No. 50511.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Sept. 20, 1978.

Watkins & Eager, Velia Ann Mayer, P. N. Harkins, III, Jackson, for appellant.

Smith & McLemore, James G. McLemore, Jr., James E. Smith, James E. Smith, Jr., Carthage, for appellees.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Leake County; O. H. Barnett and Marcus D. Gordon, Judges.

Before SMITH, P. J., and BROOM and LEE, JJ.

Affirmed on condition of remittitur, otherwise reversed and remanded.

PATTERSON, C. J., ROBERTSON, p’ J., and SUGG, WALKER, BOWLING and COFER, JJ., concur.