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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated balance sheet of Farmers Group, Inc. and subsidiaries as of
September 30, 1998 and the related consolidated statements of income, 
comprehensive income, stockholders' equity and cash flows for the nine
month period ended September 30, 1998 (unaudited) and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
        
       
<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         338,700
<SECURITIES>                                    55,910
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               683,464
<PP&E>                                         696,037
<DEPRECIATION>                                 283,870
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,542,957
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          403,004
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          500,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,947,219
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,542,957
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,286,713
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,570,409
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              31,553
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                684,751
<INCOME-TAX>                                   268,657
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            416,094
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   416,094
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

        

</TABLE>
### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE July 12, 2024 **BRITTNEY C. SHEDD v. TENNESSEE BOARD OF NURSING Appeal from the Chancery Court for Rutherford County**  **No. 22CV -** **2204 Bonita Jo Atwood, Judge** 

**___________________________________ No.**  **M2024 -**  **01018 -**  **COA -** **R3 -**  **CV**

**___________________________________** This is an appeal from an order dismissing a complaint for judicial review
. Because the appellant did not file her notice of appeal with the clerk of the appellate court within thirty days after entry of the order as required by Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a), we dismiss the appeal.

**Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Appeal Dism issed**  A NDY D. B ENNETT , W. NEAL M CB RAYER, and JEFFREY U SMAN , JJ
. Brittney Chanel Shedd , Murfreesboro , Tennessee, pro se. Rachel Greer Appelt , Nashville , Tennessee, for the appellee, Tennessee Board of Nursing. **MEMORANDUM OPINION** 1 Brittney Chanel Shedd has filed a notice of appeal from an order entered on April 13, 2023, dismissing her Complaint for Judicial Review for lack of subject matter j urisdiction. Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a) requires that a notice of appeal be filed with the clerk of the appellate court within thirty days after entry of the judgment appealed. Ms. Shedd did not file her notice of appeal until July 11 , 202 4 , more than a year after entry of the judgment.

1 A case designated as a memorandum opinion “shall not be published, and shall not be cited or relied on for any reason in any unrelated case.” Tenn. Ct. App. R. 10.- 2
-

The thirty
- day time limit for filing a notice of appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional. Albert v. Frye , 145 S.W.3d 526, 528 (Tenn. 2004); Binkley v. Medling, 117 S.W.3d 252, 255 (Tenn. 2003). This Court can neither waive nor extend the time period. Tenn. R. App. P. 2 and 21(b); Flautt & Mann v. Council of City of Memphis , 285 S.W.3d 856, 868 at n.1 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008); Jefferson v. Pneumo Servs. Co rp. , 699 S.W.2d 181, 184 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1985). The failure to file a timely notice of appeal deprives this Court of jurisdiction to hear the matter. Flautt & Mann v. Council of City of Memphis , 285 S.W.3d at 869 at n.1. The appeal is dismissed for failure to file a timely notice of appeal
. All pending requests for relief are denied. Ms. Shedd is taxed with the costs for which execution may issue. PER CURIAM
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 1670

ENRIQUE ALEXANDER HERNANDEZ RODRIGUEZ , Petitioner ,

v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General , Respondent

.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted : March 11 , 2019 Decided: March 28, 2019

Before WILKINSON and FLOYD , Circuit Judges , and DUNCAN, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.
Joseph A. Devamithran, LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH A. DEVAMITHRAN, Annandale, Virginia, for Petitioner. Joseph H. Hunt, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Paul Fiorino, Senior Litigation Counsel, Timothy Bo Stanton, Office of Immigration Litigation , UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Enrique Alexander Hernandez Rodriguez (Rodriguez), a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appea ls dismissing Rodriguez’s appeal from the Immigration Judge’s denial of his applications for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We
have reviewed the arguments pressed by Rodriguez in conjunction with the certified
administrative record , including the transcript of the merits hearing and all supporting evidence, and the relevant legal authorities. Despite Rodriguez’s assertions to the contrary, we conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary t o any of the administrative factual findings, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and that
substantial evidence “on the record considered as a whole” supports the denial of relief in
this case , INS v. Elias

- Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992) (internal quo tation marks omitted)

. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board.
See In re R odriguez (B.I.A. May 15, 2018). We 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.
PETITION DENIED
#### Charles E. BALL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-756.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Oct. 27, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
ICRAS 1413 1845
- 0038 v 11

– Affected Public

– State, Local or Tribal Governme nts 8 / 5 /2013

**Student Assistance General Provisions**

**– Subpart K** 

**– Cash Management**  This request is for a revision to the current information collection 1845

- 0038 that is expiring. This collection pertains to the recordkeeping requirements contained in the regulations r elated to the administration of the Subpart K

- Cash Management section of the Student Assistance General Provisions. The regulatory language has not changed. These program regulations are designed to provide benefits to borrowers, and protect the taxpay ers' interest. The information collection requirements in these regulations are necessary to provide students with required information about their eligibility to receive funding under the federal student financial aid programs and to prevent fraud and ab use of program funds b y allowing students to reduce or reject aid being offered as well as being made aware of when such funding can be expected to be available. 34 CFR 668.163

– Maintaining and accounting for funds

– identifies how institution’s accounts into which federal student aid funds are to be established and maintained. It also identifies how institutional accounting and internal controls are to be maintained. The Department will increase the number of respondents to more accuratel y reflect the number of participating institutions, both domestic and foreign. Section T otal Respon dents 2,212 Respon ses 2,212 Burden Hours 2,72 6 34 CFR 668.165

– Notices and authorizations

– requires that institution’s provide their federal student aid recipie nts with information about how much aid the recipient can expect to receive, when the aid will be available, provide the recipients the option of decreasing or eliminating loan or TEACH Grant funding if desired, and receive affirmative confirmation from th e recipient of the accepted aid. Additionally , the institution must allow for a recipient to elect to have the institution hold aid funds and allow for the recipient to change that authorization at any time in writing. Section T otal Respon dents 2,212 Respon ses 9,241,500 Burden Hours 277,245 TOTAL S Respon dents 2,212 unduplicated institutions Respon ses 9,243,712 Burden Hours 279,9 71
#### Joseph D. SCHINKER d/b/a Harmon Enterprises and the City of St. Petersburg, a municipal corporation, Appellants, v. John R. HOLTON and Charlotte M. Holton, his wife, Appellees.

No. 72-713.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 13, 1973.

George H. Brown, III, of Brown, Watson & Goldstein, St. Petersburg, for appellants.

Robert J. Finck, of Masterson, Sundberg & Rogers, St. Petersburg, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Appellants’ motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution filed under RCP 1.420(e), 30 *44F.S.A., was prematurely filed. See Shalabey v. Memorial Hosp. of S. Broward Hosp. District, Fla.App.1971, 253 So.2d 712. The order denying the motion is hereby

Affirmed.

LILES, Acting C. J., and HOBSON and McNULTY, TJ„ concur.
#### Curtis Wilson MATHIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-175.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 11, 1971..

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
No. 10624.

#### The Cleveland Electric Railway Co. *v.*Hayes, Admx.

Decided May 26, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

*Messrs. Squire, Sanders & Dempsey,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. H. B. Parsons,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed on authority of *The Mahoning Valley Railway Co.*v. *Van Alstine, Admr.,*77 Ohio St., 395.

Price, C. J., Shauck, Crew, Summers, Spear and Davis, JJ., concur.
254 La. 865

#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Charles W. TIDWELL v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden Louisiana State Penitentiary, et al.

No. 50218.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 17, 1969.

In re: Charles W. Tidwell applying for writ of habeas corpus.

Application denied. The showing made is insufficient to entitle relator to the relief sought.
#### Keland GENTRY and Ellen Lynn Gentry v. Jeff. BARBER, Individually and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.

No. 61200.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 13, 1978.

In re: August Mitchell and Checker Cabs, Inc. (Third-Party Defendants) applying for *1047certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit. Parish of Orleans. 351 So.2d 215.

Writ denied.
#### SHAFER & MILLER, a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. MIAMI HEART INSTITUTE, INC., Appellee.

No. 69-1093.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 9, 1970.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 5, 1970.

*311Wicker, Smith, Pyszka, Blomqvist & Da-vant, Miami, for appellant.

Preddy, Haddad, Kutner & Hardy, Miami, for appellee.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a final summary judgment as to liability for Miami Heart Institute, Inc., upon its crossclaim against its co-defendant Shafer & Miller, a corporation, in a suit claiming personal injury on a construction site. The appellants Shafer & Miller were the general contractors upon the job and gave to the ap-pellee, who were the owners, the following indemnity agreement:

> “Indemnity — The contractor covenants to indemnify and save harmless the Owner from and against all losses and all claims, demands, payment, suits, actions, recoveries and judgments of every nature and description suffered or sustained by the Owner or brought against the Owner, or by anyone or more of same, by reason for any act or omission of the said Contractor, the Contractor’s agents or employees in any manner relating to the execution of the work or in guarding the same.”

The trial judge correctly held that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to ultimate fact that if liability existed for the injury that the liability existed because of an “act or omission of the said contractor”. It follows from the clear wording of the contract that as a matter of law the appellee was entitled to the partial summary judgment upon liability. Where determination of liability depends upon a written instrument of the parties thereto and the legal effect to be drawn therefrom, the question at issue is one of law only and ordinarily is determinable by summary judgment. Kochan v. American Fire and Casualty Company, Fla.App.1967, 200 So.2d 213, 220.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 10.21

 

Power of Attorney

 

THIS POWER OF ATTORNEY (hereinafter, the “Power of Attorney”) is executed by Zuyu DING (Domicile [*], ID card No.: [*]) as of April 1, 2012 and issued to Xin ZHOU (Domicile [*], ID card No.: [*]) (hereinafter, the “Entrusted Person”).

 

I, Zuyu DING, hereby entrust the Entrusted Person with full representative power to exercise the following rights owned by me in the capacity of a shareholder of Beijing Jiajujiu E-Commerce Co., Ltd. (hereinafter, the “Company”) on my behalf:

 

(1)         As my representative, to propose to convene and attend shareholders’ meetings of the Company according to the articles of association of the Company;

 

(2)         As my representative, to exercise, on my behalf, voting rights on all matters requiring discussion or resolutions of the shareholders’ meetings of the Company, including without limitation, the appointment and election of the Company’s directors and other officers, who should be appointed and removed by the shareholders;

 

(3)         As my representative, to exercise other voting rights of a shareholder as specified in the articles of association of the Company (including any other shareholder voting rights as specified in the amended articles of association).

 

I hereby irrevocably confirm that this Power of Attorney shall continue to be valid until the Shareholder Voting Right Proxy Agreement executed by and between Beijing Maiteng Fengshun Science and Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter, the “WFOE”), the Company and the shareholders of the Company as of April 1, 2012 expires or is early terminated, unless the WFOE gives me a direction to replace the Entrusted Person.

 

Authorization is hereby made.

 

	
 
    	
Name: Zuyu DING
    
	
 
    	
Signature:
    	
/s/ Zuyu DING
    
	
 
    	
Date: April 1, 2012
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Donna L. KELLER, Appellee.

No. 72-880.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Nov. 8, 1972.

Appeal dismissed.
No. D-2246.

#### In re Disbarment of Maguire.

James J. Ma-guire, Jr., of Hamilton Square, N. J., is suspended from the practice of law in this Court, and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Ronald D. ANDERSON.

No. 61084.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 9, 1977.

In re: State of Louisiana applying for supervisory writs. Parish of East Baton Rouge.

Granted. 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 Donovan W. Parker, Judge of the Nineteenth (19th) Judicial District, Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, to transmit to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, on or before the 23rd 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 why the relief prayed for in the petition of the relator should not be granted.
#### Charles COWARD, Jr., Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 70-257.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 2, 1970.

Habeas corpus denied.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 24-1235

___________________________

Jason Ray Clark

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

v.

Zach Carter; Sara Carter

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of South Dakota

 ____________

 Submitted: August 12, 2024

Filed: August 22, 2024

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SMITH, BENTON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Jason Ray Clark appeals the district court1 order granting defendants’ motion

to dismiss his diversity action. After careful de novo review of the record, the parties’

1The Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, United States District Judge for the

District of South Dakota.
submissions on appeal, and the issues properly before us, we find no basis for

reversal. See Dittmer Props., L.P. v. FDIC, 708 F.3d 1011, 1016 (8th Cir. 2013)

(standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

-2-
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 6000

ANTHONY Q. KELLY , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. Mr. STEPHEN T. MOYER, Secretary of Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services; STATE OF MARYLAND; FRANK B. BISHOP, JR., Warden; RICHARD S. RODERICK, Case Management Manager , Defendants

- Appellees

.

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

. Richard D. Bennett , District Judge. ( 1:16

- cv
- 04143

- RDB )

Submitted : November 13, 2018 Decided: November 21, 2018

Before MOTZ and KEENAN , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Anthony Quentin Kelly, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Anthony Quentin Kelly appeals the distr ict court’s order s denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint and his motion for reconsideration . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by
the district court. Kelly v. Moyer , No. 1:16

- cv
- 04143

- RDB (D. Md. Aug. 14 & Nov. 9, 2017) . We 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.
AFFIRMED
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 33 (Wednesday, February 19, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 7446]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-3973]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. CP97-236-000]


National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation; Notice of Application

February 12, 1997.
    Take notice that on February 6, 1997, National Fuel Gas Supply 
Corporation (National), 10 Lafayette Square, Buffalo, New York 14203, 
filed in Docket No. CP97-236-000 an application pursuant to Section 
7(b) of the Natural Gas Act and Part 157 of the Commission's 
Regulations, for authority to abandon certain underground natural gas 
storage facilities, all as more fully set forth in the application on 
file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
    National proposes to abandon an observation well, designated as 
Well 1557, because it is no longer reliable as a pressure indicator for 
the field. National further proposes to abandon well line S-1557, a 
gathering line attached to Well 1557 which serves no other purpose. 
National estimates the cost of performing the plugging and abandonment 
of the well and the gathering line to be $20,000.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to make any protest with 
reference to said application should on or before March 5, 1997, file 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, D.C. 20426) a motion to intervene or a protest in 
accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the 
Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.10). All protests filed with the Commission 
will be considered by it in determining the appropriate action to be 
taken but will not serve to make the protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party to a proceeding or to 
participate as a party in any hearing therein must file a motion to 
intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules.
    Take further notice that, pursuant to the authority contained in 
and subject to the jurisdiction conferred upon the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission by Section 7 and 15 of the Natural Gas Act and 
the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, a hearing will be 
held without further notice before the Commission or its designee on 
this application if no motion to intervene is filed within the time 
required herein, if the Commission on its on review of the matter finds 
that permission and approval for the proposed abandonment is required 
by the public convenience and necessity. If a motion for leave to 
intervene is timely filed, or if the Commission on its own motion 
believes that a formal hearing is required, further notice of such 
hearing will be duly given.
    Under the procedure herein provided for, unless otherwise advised, 
it will be unnecessary for National to appear or be represented at the 
hearing.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-3973 Filed 2-18-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
254 La. 858

#### Edward ALLEMAN v. Harry GUILLOT.

No. 50140.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 12, 1969.

In re: Edward Alleman applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of Assumption. 225 So.2d 607.

Writ refused. No error in the judgment complained of.
#### SECRETARY OF STATE, State of Florida, Petitioner, v. Claude E. GORDON, Respondent.

No. 71-269.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 26, 1971.

Certiorari quashed.
No. 10810.

#### Hayes et al. *v.*McMaken, Treasurer, et al.

Decided April 14, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court of Lucas county.

*Mr. A. B. PIayes,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Mr. C. S. Northup,*city solicitor; *Mr. Orion W. Nelson*and *Mr. Charles E. Sumner,*for defendants in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Price, Summers 'and Davis, JJ., concur.