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 FABRI-CENTERS OF AMERICA, INC. AS OF JULY 27, 1996
AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE TWENTY-SIX WEEKS THEN ENDED.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-01-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-28-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-26-1996
<CASH>                                          16,664
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    355,384
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               381,577
<PP&E>                                         173,838
<DEPRECIATION>                                  77,652
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 493,057
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          161,039
<BONDS>                                        136,883
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            1,005
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     179,247
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   493,057
<SALES>                                        621,480
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               621,480
<CGS>                                          346,922
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  602,285
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,611
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,584
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,969
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,615
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,615
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.36
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.36
        

</TABLE>
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE CATALINO QUINTEROS

RAMOS,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 11-72907

Agency No. A072-130-907

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 19, 2012** 

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges. 

Jose Catalino Quinteros Ramos, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his

motion to reopen removal proceedings based on ineffective assistance of counsel.

FILED

DEC 21 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-72907

Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of

discretion the denial of a motion to reopen and review de novo questions of law. 

Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny in part

and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Quinteros Ramos’s motion

to reopen where Quinteros Ramos has not established prejudice from his prior

counsel’s alleged ineffective assistance. See id. at 793-94 (prejudice results when

“the performance of counsel was so inadequate that it may have affected the

outcome of the proceedings”). 

We lack jurisdiction over Quinteros Ramos’s contention that the

immigration judge failed to advise Quinteros Ramos properly about the

fingerprinting requirement because this is not a timely challenge to the agency’s

prior order. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF JUNE 30, 2000 AND THE RELATED CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE NINE MONTHS THEN ENDED AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          56,848
<SECURITIES>                                     3,212
<RECEIVABLES>                                  147,454
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     32,185
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               253,707
<PP&E>                                          40,004
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 326,584
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           79,827
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              234
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     191,383
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   326,584
<SALES>                                        393,395
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               399,261
<CGS>                                          310,655
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  310,655
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                65,360
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,749
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 20,497
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,100
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             13,397
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    13,397
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.50
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### Ronald P. GAGNE, a minor, and Theresa Gagne, Appellants, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 69-347.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

July 28, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
Exhibit 31.2MACKINAC FINANCIAL CORPORATIONCERTIFICATIONI, Ernie R. Krueger, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Mackinac FinancialCorporation, certify that:1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Mackinac Financial Corporation (the“registrant”); 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.       Date: November 14, 2007 /s/ Ernie R. Krueger  ERNIE R. KRUEGER  EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT ANDCHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER(principal financial officer)     
32.
* 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. 95-11034

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ABRAHAM PADILLA, a/k/a Bene Padilla,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:94-CR-339-R

- - - - - - - - - -

November 14, 1996

Before GARWOOD, JOLLY, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges:

PER CURIAM:*

Abraham Padilla appeals his guilty-plea conviction to

conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 1,000 kilograms

or more of marihuana. The district court did not abuse its

discretion by refusing to grant Padilla’s motion to withdraw his

guilty plea. United States v. Bounds, 943 F.2d 541, 543 (5th

Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 845 (1993). The civil

forfeiture judgment against Padilla, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881,
No. 95-11034

- 2 -

and his subsequent conviction did not violate the Double Jeopardy

Clause. United States v. Ursery, 116 S. Ct. 2135, 2147-49

(1996). The district court did not clearly err in its

calculation of the amount of marihuana attributable to Padilla,

see United States v. Angulo, 927 F.2d 202, 205 (5th Cir. 1991),

and also did not clearly err by determining that Padilla was a

leader or organizer. See United States v. Watson, 988 F.2d 544,

550 (5th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1048 (1994). 

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE> 1

<TABLE>

EXHIBIT 11.1 - STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS 

<CAPTION>

FEDERAL-MOGUL CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES



        FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED                  PRIMARY         FULLY DILUTED
                                                 --------------    --------------- 
                MARCH 31                          1997    1996      1997     1996
------------------------------------------       ------  ------    ------   ------

<S>
EARNINGS:  (In Millions)
                                                 <C>     <C>       <C>      <C>
  Net earnings                                   $ 13.9  $ 10.6    $ 13.9   $ 10.6 
  Series C preferred dividend requirements          (.6)    (.6)        -        -
  Series D preferred dividend requirements         (1.5)   (1.6)     (1.6)    (1.6)
  Additional required ESOP contribution <F1>          -       -       (.5)     (.5)
                                                  -----   -----     -----    -----

  Net earnings available for common 
    and equivalent shares                        $ 11.8  $  8.4    $ 11.9   $  8.5 
                                                  =====   =====     =====    =====


WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES:  (In Millions)

  Common shares outstanding                        35.1    35.0      35.1     35.0
  Dilutive stock options outstanding                 .1       -        .2        -
  Conversion of Series C preferred stock <F3>         -       -       1.6      1.8
  Contingent issuance of common stock to
    satisfy the redemption price guarantee <F2><F4>   -       -        .3       .6
                                                  -----   -----     -----    -----

  Common and equivalent shares outstanding         35.2    35.0      37.2     37.4
                                                  =====   =====     =====    =====


PER COMMON AND EQUIVALENT SHARE:

   Net earnings                                  $  .33  $  .24    $  .32   $  .23
                                                  =====   =====     =====    =====

</TABLE>

[FN]
<F1> Amount represents the additional after-tax contribution that would be 
     necessary to meet the ESOP debt service requirements under an assumed 
     conversion of the Series C preferred stock.

<F2> Calculations consider the March 31, 1997 common stock market price in 
     accordance with Emerging Issues Task Force Abstract No. 89-12.

<F3> Amount represents the weighted average number of common shares issued 
     assuming conversion of preferred stock outstanding.

<F4> Amount represents the additional number of common shares that would be 
     issued in order to satisfy the Series C preferred stock redemption price 
     guarantee.  This calculation considers only the number of preferred 
     shares Held by the ESOP that have been allocated to participants'
     accounts as of March 31 of the respective years.
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-18-0000611

10-APR-2019

09:09 AM
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HONGWEI ZHANG,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-70558

Agency No. A095-195-662

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 20, 2011** 

Before: RYMER, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

Hongwei Zhang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration

judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal,

and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction

FILED

MAY 06 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-70558

under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Li v. Ashcroft, 378

F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir. 2004), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility finding because

Zhang testified inconsistently as to when he started practicing Falun Gong and

when he decided to leave China, see id., and Zhang failed to provide plausible

explanations for these inconsistencies, see Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1275

(9th Cir. 2007). Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s adverse credibility

determination based on the IJ’s negative assessment of Zhang’s demeanor. See

Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1151 (9th Cir. 1999). In the absence of credible

testimony, Zhang’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v.

Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

Because Zhang’s CAT claim is based on the same evidence the agency

found not credible and he points to no further evidence to show it is more likely

than not he would be tortured if returned to China, his CAT claim fails. See id. at

1156-57.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Earl CLARK.

No. 61666.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 17, 1978.

In re: Earl Clark applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and stay order. Parish of Plaquemines.

Denied.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-12-00079-CR

RUBEN VASQUEZ APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM THE 297TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

Pursuant to a plea bargain, appellant Ruben Vasquez pled guilty to statejail-felony theft, judicially confessed to that offense, and waived constitutional and 

statutory rights.

2

 The trial court convicted him and followed the State’s 

punishment recommendation by sentencing him to six months’ confinement. 

Appellant filed a notice of appeal, but the trial court certified that this “is a plea-

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

2See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.03(a), (e)(4)(D) (West Supp. 2011).
2

bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” See Tex. R. App. P. 

25.2(a)(2) (explaining that in a plea bargain case, defendants may appeal only 

after getting the trial court’s permission or when the appeal concerns matters 

raised by written pretrial motions that are ruled on before trial), (d) (stating that 

the “appeal must be dismissed if a certification that shows the defendant has the 

right of appeal has not been made part of the record”).

We sent a letter to appellant to express that because of the trial court’s 

certification, unless he filed a response showing grounds for continuing the 

appeal, we could dismiss it. Appellant has not filed a response. Thus, in 

accordance with the trial court’s certification and because appellant has not 

established that rule 25.2(a)(2) permits this appeal, we dismiss the appeal. See

Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2), (d), 43.2(f); Chavez v. State, 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

TERRIE LIVINGSTON

CHIEF JUSTICE

PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; DAUPHINOT and GARDNER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: May 31, 2012
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

July 7, 2016

No. 04

- 16

- 00181

- CV

THREE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED FORTY

- FIVE DOLLARS ($3,445.00) UNITED STATES CURRENCY

, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

, Appellee

From the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014

- CI

- 08281 Honorable Larry Noll, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant is an inmate acting pro se in a civil suit. In his notice of appeal, Appellant moved this court to appoint appellate counsel.

A court may appoint counsel for a pro se civil litigant “under exceptional circumstances.” See Gibson v. Tolbert , 102 S.W.3d 710, 712 (Tex. 2003) (citing Travelers Indem. Co. of Conn

. v. Mayfield , 923 S.W.2d 590, 594 (Tex. 1996) ); see also Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 24.016 (West 2004). Exceptional circumstances are “rare and unusual,” and Appellant’s motion presents no such circumstances. See Gibson , 102 S.W.3d at 713 (denying court

- appointed counsel to an indigent inmate for his civil suit against prison personnel).

Appellant’s motion for court

- appointed appellate counsel is DENIED.

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 7th day of July, 2016

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court
263 La. 795

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Melvin TEAL.

No. 52994.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 5, 1972.

SUMMERS, J.,

recused.

In re Melvin Teal, applying for writ of habeas corpus.

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 Carrol L. Spell, Judge of the Fifteenth Judicial District Court for the Parish of Vermilion, to transmit to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, on or before the 23rd day of February, 1973, 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 the date aforesaid, at 11 o’clock A.M., why the relief prayed for in the petition of the relator should not be granted.

It is further ordered that, in the meantime and until the further orders of this court all proceedings against the relator in said Fifteenth Judicial District Court shall be stayed and suspended.

SUMMERS, J., recused.
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 quarterly report of PASSUR Aerospace, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended April 30, 2008, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Jeffrey P. Devaney, 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, to my knowledge:

     (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.


                                            By: /s/ Jeffrey P. Devaney
                                                ------------------------
                                                Jeffrey P. Devaney
                                                Chief Financial Officer
                                                June 13, 2008
The State of TexasAppellee/s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 29, 2015

No. 04-02-00864-CR

Mario Limone SAUCEDO,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 198th Judicial District Court, Menard County, Texas

Trial Court No. 02-1892

Honorable Emil Karl Prohl, Judge Presiding

O R DER

The Appellant’s Amended Motion to File for Rehearing is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF 

JURISDICTION.

It is so ORDERED on the 29th day of January, 2015.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: ____________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court 

.
259 La. 799

#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Leon Calvin ROBBINS v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 51802.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 13, 1971.

In re: Leon Calvin Robbins, applying for writs of habeas corpus, mandamus and certiorari.

Writ denied. The showing made does not warrant the exercise of our original or supervisory jurisdiction.