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

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME, AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           1,132
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           1,194
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 7,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     28,998
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          25,372
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            25,715
<LOANS>                                         57,340
<ALLOWANCE>                                        681
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 124,603
<DEPOSITS>                                     101,343
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              1,891
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            16
<OTHER-SE>                                      21,353
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 124,603
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  2,442
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,818
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   332
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 4,592
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               2,311
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,311
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            2,281
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       21
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  22
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  1,480
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    878
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         878
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       509
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.35
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.76
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,441
<LOANS-PAST>                                       653
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   660
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  681
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               681
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
_____________ No. 96-3316EM

_____________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Eastern v. * District of Missouri. * Michael Watson, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

_____________ Submitted: February 5, 1997 Filed: February 26, 1997

_____________ Before McMILLIAN, FAGG, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

_____________ PER CURIAM. On appeal from his cocaine-related s entence, Michael Watson contends he s hould have received an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction. W e disagree. Having reviewed the record, we conclude Watson's state arrest for possessing cocaine while on bond awaiting sentencing in this case-
- after removing an ele ctrical monitoring device he was required to wear as a condition of his re lease--provides ample justification for the district cou rt's decision to deny the reduction. SeeU.S. Sentencing Guideline s Manual § 3E1.1 cmt. note 1(b); United States v. Nguyen , 52 F.3d 192, 194 (8thCi r. 1995) (affirming denial of § 3E1.1 reduction when defendan t committed similar type of offense while on bond). We affirm Watson' s sentence. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 12


                    GE GLOBAL INSURANCE HOLDING CORPORATION
                                AND SUBSIDIARIES

                Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges

                        Three months ended March 27, 1999

                                   (Unaudited)


(In millions)

Earnings:
   Earnings before income taxes                                 $358
   Fixed charges:
      Minority interest in net earnings of
         consolidated subsidiaries (1)                            22
      Interest expense (2)                                        23
                                                                ----
                                                                $403
                                                                ====

Fixed charges:
   Minority interest in net earnings of
      consolidated subsidiaries (3)                             $ 32
   Interest expense (2)                                           23
                                                                ----
                                                                $ 55
                                                                ====

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                              7.33
                                                                ====


(1)  Minority  interest in net earnings of  consolidated  subsidiaries  includes
     dividends on subsidiary's preferred stock.

(2)  Interest  expense  includes an amount for one-third of the rental  expense,
     which the Company  believes is a reasonable  approximation  of the interest
     factor for such rentals.

(3)  The  fixed  charges  amount  for  minority  interest  in  net  earnings  of
     consolidated subsidiaries represents the pretax earnings amount which would
     be required to cover such fixed charges as calculated below:

                Subsidiary's Preferred Stock Dividend Requirement
                -------------------------------------------------
                             100% - Income Tax Rate

     The  income  tax rate is based on the  relationship  of the  provision  for
     income taxes to earnings before income taxes for the respective period.


                                        9
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                      26,659,000
<SECURITIES>                                 6,863,000
<RECEIVABLES>                               16,805,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   904,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            54,626,000
<PP&E>                                      11,229,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,840,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              63,542,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       20,551,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        24,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  33,671,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                63,542,000
<SALES>                                     15,026,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            22,523,000
<CGS>                                          120,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,164,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               124,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              29,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,679,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,497,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,549,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,549,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.10
        

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

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET OF WINDSOR PARK PROPERTIES 2 AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1995 AND THE RELATED
STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS, PARTNER'S EQUITY AND CASH FLOWS FOR THE YEAR THEN
ENDED AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                         411,800
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       3,037,700
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,262,700
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,213,800
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,150,000<F1>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,213,800
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               533,300
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  463,500
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               227,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (157,200)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (157,200)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (157,200)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.04)<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Limited and general partners equity
<F2>Net loss per limited partnership unit
</FN>
        

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

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER>           1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                             982
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           1,596
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     51,405
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                         75,889
<ALLOWANCE>                                        308
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 135,778
<DEPOSITS>                                      84,079
<SHORT-TERM>                                    19,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              1,639
<LONG-TERM>                                     19,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            11
<OTHER-SE>                                      12,129
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 135,778
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  2,913
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,675
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   123
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 4,711
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               1,885
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,845
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            1,865
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        1
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   7
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  1,403
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    912
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         912
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       606
<EPS-BASIC>                                         88
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       85
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                     768
<LOANS-NON>                                        264
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                    489
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   311
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        5
<RECOVERIES>                                         1
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  308
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               275
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                             33


</TABLE>
#### In re ESTATE of Bernice A. CARTY, Deceased.

No. 69-113.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

Oct. 17, 1969.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 3, 1969.

Joe N. Unger, Miami Beach, for appellant.

Belcher & Fleece, St. Petersburg, for appellee.

MANN, Judge.

Bernice Carty’s heirs at law are a brother, the appellant Chambers, two half-sisters, the appellees Mrs. Neely and Mrs. Hockensmith, and a nephew, son of a deceased brother. Chambers appeals from an order denying revocation of letters of administration granted to Mrs. Neely on petition of herself and Mrs. Hockensmith, without notice to Chambers.

*895Florida Statutes Section 732.44, F.S.A. provides:

> “Preference in appointment of administrator. In the granting of letters of administration, the following preference shall be observed:

> (1) The surviving spouse shall first be entitled to letters.

> (2) The next of kin, at the time of the death of the decedent, shall next be entitled to letters.

> (3) If there are several next of kin, *equally near in degree,*the one selected in writing by a *majority of them*who are sui juris shall be appointed. If no such selection is thus made, the county judge may exercise his discretion in selecting the one best qualified for the office.”

Section 732.43 provides that citation need not be served if the petitioner is entitled to preference of appointment.

The brother and half-sisters are equally near to the decedent *in degree,*degree being a measure of the generations separating a claimant from the decedent through a common ancestor, although the interest of a relative of the half blood is diminished by half. Thus there were three persons in equally near degree surviving Bernice Carty, two of whom, a *majority*in number, although entitled between them to a third only of the net estate, were entitled to petition without citation for letters.

The County Judge correctly read the statute. Chambers may be a victim of legislative oversight, but we are powerless to make him the beneficiary of judicial legislation.

Affirmed.

HOBSON, C. J., concurs.

PIERCE, J., dissents.
#### Reuben R. ROCHKIND, Appellant, v. Sarah ROCHKIND, Appellee.

No. 72-224.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 6, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1092 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to require an Inspector General 

investigation of allegations of retaliatory personnel actions taken in response to making protected communications regarding sexual assault. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 4, 2013 

Ms. KLOBUCHAR (for herself, Mrs. MCCASKILL, and Mr. SCHATZ) introduced 

the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee 

on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to require an Inspector General investigation of allegations of retaliatory personnel actions taken in response to making protected 

communications regarding sexual assault. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1092 IS

1 SECTION 1. INSPECTOR GENERAL INVESTIGATION OF AL2 LEGATIONS OF RETALIATORY PERSONNEL 

3 ACTIONS TAKEN IN RESPONSE TO MAKING 

4 PROTECTED COMMUNICATIONS REGARDING 

5 SEXUAL ASSAULT. 

6 Section 1034(c)(2)(A) of title 10, United States 

7 Code, is amended by striking ‘‘sexual harassment or’’ and 

8 inserting ‘‘rape, sexual assault, or other sexual misconduct 

9 under sections 920 through 920c of this title (articles 120 

10 through 120c of the Uniform Code of Military Justice), 

11 sexual harassment, or’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed May 22 , 2018.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14- 17 -00309- CR NO. 14- 17 -00311- CR

COURTNEY DRAN SARGENT, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 212th District Court Galveston County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. 16CR0338 & 16CR0339

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant appeals his conviction s for aggravated robbery

. Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal s are wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967 ) , by assigning issues that might arguably support the appeal , and explaining why those issues do not raise arguab le error

. See Gainous v.
State , 436 S.W.2d 137 , 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969.]2

A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised of the right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response. See Stafford
v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). As of this date, more than 60 days have passed and no pro se response has been filed.
We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree the appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error
in the record. We are not to address the merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief or a pro se response when we have determined there are no arguable grounds for
review. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
Accordingly, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jamison, Wise, and Jewell. Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
#### James Dewey BOURN, Appellant, v. Trudy Terlizzi BOURN, Appellee.

No. 70-372.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 27, 1970.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Orange County; Richard H. Cooper, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
Exhibit 23(a)

Consent of Deloitte & Touche LLP



We consent to the
incorporation by reference in Registration Statements on Form S-8 of Material Sciences Corporation (No.s 33-00067, 33-40610, 33-41310, 33-57648, 33-81064, 333-15679, 333-15677, 333-33885, 333-33897 and 333-88387) of our report dated May 10,
2004 (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes explanatory paragraphs relating to (i) the Companys change in its method of accounting for goodwill and intangible assets, (ii) disclosures, related to the aforementioned
accounting change, of financial statement amounts related to the 2002 financial statements and (iii) the change in the composition of reportable segments in 2004 and 2003 and reclassifications of financial statement amounts related to the 2002
financial statements; the 2002 financial statements were audited by other auditors who have ceased operations and for which we have expressed no opinion or other form of assurance other than with respect to such disclosures and reclassifications)
appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Material Sciences Corporation for the year ended February 29, 2004.

|                              
|------------------------------
|                              
|/s/    Deloitte & Touche LLP  
|                              
|Deloitte & Touche LLP         
|                              
|Chicago, Illinois May 14, 2004



1
Exhibit 32.1
 
 Statement of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350
 
 
 In connection with the Annual Report of Highlands Bankshares, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, as the chief executive officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 1)           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.
 
 
 /s/ C.E. PorterDate: March 29, 2010
C.E. Porter, Chief Executive Officer