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

<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                   1,038,303,000
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                      51,875,000
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                            61,863,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                            24,155,000
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>              5,528,877,000
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                   3,602,979,000
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                     3,471,088,000
<LOANS>                                 29,081,287,000
<ALLOWANCE>                                352,998,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          41,418,403,000
<DEPOSITS>                              31,954,383,000
<SHORT-TERM>                             3,888,589,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                        402,286,000
<LONG-TERM>                              2,032,411,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                   138,857,000
<OTHER-SE>                               3,001,877,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>          41,418,403,000
<INTEREST-LOAN>                            602,957,000
<INTEREST-INVEST>                          165,228,000
<INTEREST-OTHER>                            12,044,000
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                           780,229,000
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                         319,177,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         426,113,000
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                      354,116,000
<LOAN-LOSSES>                               29,177,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                        (40,018,000)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                            271,135,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            220,596,000
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                 220,596,000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               146,005,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .66
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .66
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.65
<LOANS-NON>                                189,260,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                64,117,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                            12,969,000
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                           338,375,000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                               22,862,000
<RECOVERIES>                                 6,449,000
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                          352,998,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                       352,998,000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                    352,998,000


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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         535,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  564,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  2,024,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,369,000
<PP&E>                                       4,661,000<F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,152,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,123,000
<BONDS>                                      2,403,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    65,349,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     149,000<F2>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,152,000
<SALES>                                      9,307,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,307,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               11,678,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               589,000<F3>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,960,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,960,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,960,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.24)
<FN>
<F1>This value is net of depreciation.
<F2>Value represents redeemable common stock warrants.
<F3>Amount includes $107,000 of interest income.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16
- 1780

In re: RICHARD P. MEABON; EVELYN L. MEABON

------------------------------ RICHARD P. MEABON , Debtor

– Appellant ,

v. R. KEITH JOHNSON , Trustee

– Appellee , and
EVELYN L. MEABON , Debtor

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Charlotte

. Robert J. Conrad, Jr. , District Judge. ( 3:15

- cv
- 00398

- RJC ; 10

- 30455 ; 12

- 03218 )

Submitted : September 7 , 2017 Decided: September 28, 2017

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.2 Kurt Friedrich Hausler, HAUSLER LAW FIRM, PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. R. Keith Johnson, Stanley, North Carolina; John C. Woodman, SODOMA LAW, P.C., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM: In 2010, Richard P. Meabon filed for C hapter 7 bankruptcy relief and received a discharge. However , the bankruptcy court revoked Meabon’s discharge in 2014 because
Meabon improperly failed to disclose certain trust interests on his C hapter 7 petition. Meabon appealed the revocation order to the district court , which dismissed his appeal as frivolous. In 2015, Meabon filed a Rule 60(b) motion in bankruptcy court seeking relief from the order revoking his discharge. T he bankruptcy court denied his motion, and Meabon appealed t o the district court

. The district court again entered an order dismiss ing
the appeal as frivolous. Meabon now appeals the district court’s order dismissing his appeal of the bankruptcy court’s order denying his Rule 60 (b) motion.
Meabon asserts that the district court abused i ts discretion by dismissing his appeal
as frivolous. After review ing the record and the district court ’ s opinion , we find the
district court did not abuse its discretion or commit other reversible error . Accordingly,
we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the district court

. See Meabon v.
Johnson , No. 3:15

- cv
- 00398

- RJC (W.D.N.C. Jun e 6, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not a id the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
**Exhibit21**

Subsidiaries

**THQInc.**
| Blue Tongue Entertainment Pty. Ltd.        |   | Australia        |
|--------------------------------------------|--------|------------------|
| Juice Games Limited                        |   | United Kingdom   |
| Locomotive Games, Inc.                     |   | California       |
| Mass Media, Inc.                           |   | California       |
| Rainbow Multimedia Group, Inc.             |   | Arizona          |
| THQAC, Inc.                                |   | Texas            |
| THQ/JAKKS Pacific, LLC                     |   | Delaware         |
| THQ Asia Pacific Pty. Ltd.                 |   | Australia        |
| THQ Canada Inc.                            |   | British Columbia |
| dba Relic  Entertainment                   |   |             |
| THQ Entertainment GmbH                     |   | Germany          |
| THQ France S.a r.l.                        |   | France           |
| T.HQ (Holdings) Limited                    |   | United Kingdom   |
| THQ Interactive Entertainment Espana, S.L. |   | Spain            |
| THQ International GmbH                     |   | Switzerland      |
| THQ International Operations Limited       |   | United Kingdom   |
| THQ Italy Srl                              |   | Italy            |
| THQ Japan K.K.                             |   | Japan            |
| THQ Korea Ltd.                             |   | Korea            |
| THQ Mobile USA, Inc.                       |   | Delaware         |
| THQ Nordic ApS                             |   | Denmark          |
| THQ Studio Australia Pty. Ltd.             |   | Australia        |
| THQ (UK) Limited                           |   | United Kingdom   |
| THQ Wireless Inc.                          |   | Delaware         |
| THQ Wireless International S.a r.l.        |   | Luxembourg       |
| THQ Wireless Singapore Pte. Ltd.           |   | Singapore        |
| Vigil Games, LLC                           |   | Texas            |
| Volition, Inc.                             |   | Delaware         |

 

----
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580 

Office of the Secretary 

July 18, 2013 

Katherine Groff 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts 

Re: In the Matter of The Neiman Marcus Group, Inc., File No. 082 3199, Docket No. C-4407 

 In the Matter of DrJays.com, Inc., File No. 122 3063, Docket No. C-4408 

 In the Matter of Eminent, d/b/a Revolve Clothing, File No. 122 3065, Docket No. C-4409 

Dear Ms. Groff: 

 Thank you for commenting on the Federal Trade Commission’s proposed consent agreements 

in the above-referenced proceedings. The Commission has placed your comment on the public 

record pursuant to Rule 4.9(b)(6)(ii) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice, 16 C.F.R. § 4.9(b)(6)(ii), 

and has given it serious consideration. 

Your comment raised concern that the agreements may not impose “meaningful 

consequences” on the respondents. After consideration of your comment, the Commission has 

determined that the relief set forth in the consent agreements is appropriate and sufficient to remedy 

the violations alleged in the complaints. The orders prohibit the respondents from web, mail, and 

catalog advertisements that violate the Fur Act and Rules. Under federal law, a violation of an FTC 

order is punishable by a civil penalty of up to $16,000 per violation. Therefore, if the respondents’ 

websites falsely advertise fur products as “faux” in the future, the respondents may be liable for 

significant civil penalties. Moreover, respondents have offered refunds to all consumers who 

purchased the falsely advertised products. 

Accordingly, the Commission has determined that the public interest would best be served by 

issuing the Decision and Order in each of these matters in final form without modification. The final 

Decisions and Orders and other relevant materials are available from the Commission’s website at 

http://www.ftc.gov. It helps the Commission’s analysis to hear from a variety of sources in its work, 

and we thank you again for your comment. 

By direction of the Commission. 

 Donald S. Clark 

 Secretary
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 115 (Thursday, June 14, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 27802]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-12745]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: June 14, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Reed, 202-268-3179.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
June 8, 2018, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail Contract 441 to Competitive Product List. 
Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2018-164, CP2018-
235.

Elizabeth Reed,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2018-12745 Filed 6-13-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
#### Helynn COYLE a/k/a Helynn Gilman, Appellant, v. Nathan TARLER and Lillian Tarler et al., Appellees.

No. 73-466.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 18, 1973.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Broward County; Louis Weissing, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                   1,076,869,000
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       2,449,000
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                           246,556,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                            21,317,000
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>              5,545,803,000
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                   3,607,520,000
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                     3,537,602,000
<LOANS>                                 31,204,063,000
<ALLOWANCE>                                373,699,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          43,627,096,000
<DEPOSITS>                              31,985,650,000
<SHORT-TERM>                             3,522,176,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                        366,963,000
<LONG-TERM>                              4,392,399,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                   139,050,000
<OTHER-SE>                               3,220,858,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>          43,627,096,000
<INTEREST-LOAN>                          1,904,130,000
<INTEREST-INVEST>                          459,789,000
<INTEREST-OTHER>                            33,591,000
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                         2,397,510,000
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                       1,020,104,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       1,352,584,000
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                    1,044,926,000
<LOAN-LOSSES>                               89,727,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                        (39,923,000)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                            817,261,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            589,127,000
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                 589,127,000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               399,157,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.81
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.80
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.56
<LOANS-NON>                                200,419,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                36,543,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                            13,403,000
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                           338,375,000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                               85,895,000
<RECOVERIES>                                26,351,000
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                          373,699,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                       373,699,000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                    373,699,000


</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                   EXHIBIT 23

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S CONSENT




The Board of Directors
Oxford Health Plans, Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(Nos. 33-92006 and 333-2464) on Form S-3 and the registration statements (Nos.
33-70908, 33-49738, 33-94242 and 333-988) on Form S-8 of Oxford Health Plans,
Inc. of our report dated February 18, 1997 relating to the consolidated balance
sheets of Oxford Health Plans, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1996 and
1995 and the related consolidated statements of earnings, shareholders' equity
and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31,
1996, which report appears in the December 31, 1996 annual report on Form 10-K
of Oxford Health Plans, Inc.

                                                           KPMG Peat Marwick LLP



New York, New York
March 17, 1997

                                      44
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-06-006-CV

NO. 2-06-155-CV

Ex Parte S.R.D., a child

In the Interest of B.G.D. a/k/a S.R.D., A Child	APPELLANT

	----------

	FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 COURT OF WICHITA COUNTY	NO. 2-006  -04400    07-229              -CV

JOSEPH H. LEE, III, VIRGINIA K. LEE AND 	APPELLANTS

PATRICIA LEE BARROW AND SAVINGS 

OF AMERICA, INC.	KaArReEnN CaAdDdDeElLlL	   APPELLANT	

	V.

Karen Caddell OPAL LEE, IN HER CAPACITY AS 	HoOoOdD CoOuUnNtTyY aAnNdD HoOoOdD CoOuUnNtTyY ShHeErRiIfFfF'sS OfFfFiIcCeE	APPELLEES

SHERIFF'S OFFICE TEMPORARY ADMINISTRATOR OF 

THE ESTATE OF DALE T. LEE, DECEASED

	----------

	FROM THE 355TH355TH DISTRICT          PROBATE COURT  NO. 2 OF HOOD                     TARRANT COUNTY

	----------

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

	----------

	We have considered appellant’s’ “Motion To Dismiss aAppealNotice Of Nonsuit.”  It is the court’s opinion that the motion should be granted; therefore, we dismiss the appeal.  See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f).

	Costs of the appeal shall be paid by the appellants [ [oOR the the party incurring the same], for which let execution issue.  See Tex. R. App. P. 43.4.

								PER CURIAM

PANEL D:   DAUPHINIOTOT, HOLMAN, and GARDNER, JJ.

    HOLMAN, GARDNER, and WALKER                                     , JJ.

DELIVERED:    September 28, 2006  November 192189, 2007
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Rodney PISANI.

No. 61134.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 14, 1977.

In re: Rodney Pisani applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus. Parish of St. Mary.

Denied.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Craig McCloskey, Respondent, v Marriott Corporation et al., Appellants, and South Hills Deli, Respondent. Workers’ Compensation Board, Respondent.

[735 NYS2d 666]

Rose, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed May 4, 2000, which ruled that claimant’s permanent partial disability was causally related to two work-related accidents and that apportionment was warranted.

In 1987, while employed by the Marriott Corporation, claimant sustained a back injury for which he was classified as permanently partially disabled and received workers’ compensation benefits. In 1991, while employed by South Hills Deli, claimant again injured his back. As a result of that incident, claimant brought an action for his injuries that was later settled. He also applied for workers’ compensation benefits. In July 1991, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (hereinafter WCLJ) found accident, notice and causal relationship as to the 1991 injury, and continued the case. The Workers’ Compensation Board then reopened the 1987 case based on a medical report opining that claimant’s disability was also causally related to his prior injury. In July 1998, a WCLJ determined that claimant’s disability was causally related 25% to the 1987 accident and 75% to the 1991 accident. The Marriott Corporation and its workers’ compensation carrier appealed to the Board, which affirmed the WCLJ’s decision. They now appeal to this Court, contending that claimant’s disability should not have been apportioned because claimant, after the 1987 accident and prior to his 1991 injury, had returned to work, engaged in his customary recreational activities and had averred in his 1991 personal injury action that he had no disability from the 1987 accident.

“[A]pportionment of a workers’ compensation award presents a factual issue for the Board to determine” *(Matter of August v Chromalloy R & T,*240 AD2d 966, 967, *lv dismissed*90 NY2d 1007; *see, Matter of Utley v General Motors Corp.,*285 AD2d 843, 844). Claimant had a compensable prior injury and, despite his back surgery and eventual return to work, he continued to be partially disabled due to the 1987 accident, as confirmed by the April 1990 report of Gabriel Aguilar, the attending physician. Thus, the record supports the Board’s deci*672sion that apportionment was appropriate. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered medical reports from five physicians, two of whom opined that claimant’s disability was causally related 25% to the 1987 accident and 75% to the 1991 accident. Accordingly, despite claimant’s self-serving failure to disclose the earlier disability in his personal injury action, we find that the Board’s determination was supported by substantial evidence and should not be disturbed *(see, Matter of Utley v General Motors Corp., supra,*at 844; *compare, Matter of Woods v Marriott Corp.,*285 AD2d 906, 907).

Spain, J.P., Carpinello, Mugglin and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 6722** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appell ee ,
v. RICKEY LAMONT JONES , Defendant

– Appell ant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the East ern District of Virginia , at Richmond
. James R. Spencer , Chief District Judge. ( 3 : 9 7

- c r - 00 177

- JRS

- 1 )

Submitted : Ju ly 2 7 , 2010 Decided: August 9, 2010

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON a nd KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Affirme d by un published p er curiam opinion
. Rickey Lamont Jones, Appellant Pro Se
. Stephen David Schiller , Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia , for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Rickey Lamont Jones app eals the district court ’ s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for reduction of sentence
. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons s tated by the district court. United States v. J ones , No. 3:97

- cr - 00177

- JRS

- 1 (E.D. Va. Apr. 28, 2010) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6225

LARRY ONEAL PIERCE,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

TOM BERGAMINE; W.C. DEW; RITA COX,

Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III,

District Judge. (5:10-ct-03060-D)

Submitted: April 28, 2011 Decided: May 4, 2011

Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry Oneal Pierce, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Larry Oneal Pierce appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find 

that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we affirm the 

appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. Pierce v. 

Bergamine, No. 5:10-ct-03060-D (E.D.N.C. Jan. 24, 2011). We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED