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


<ARTICLE>                                          9
              
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
        
       
<S>                                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                 SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          224
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                        5,311
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                  0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                  0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                       0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                            0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                              0
<LOANS>                                      28,250
<ALLOWANCE>                                     181
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               35,229
<DEPOSITS>                                   22,501
<SHORT-TERM>                                      0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             483
<LONG-TERM>                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<COMMON>                                         79
<OTHER-SE>                                   12,166
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               35,229
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 638
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                 0
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 82
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                720
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              263
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                0
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           457
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                     4
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 227
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 232
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      232
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                    162
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   .20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   .20
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                 5.42
<LOANS-NON>                                     203
<LOANS-PAST>                                    348
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                  0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                 364
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                177
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                     0
<RECOVERIES>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               181
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            181
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                               0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                           0
        


</TABLE>
#### Phillip ETTINGER, Appellant, v. Claire M. ETTINGER, Appellee.

No. 71-565.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 21, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 21.1
                                  ------------


As of January 1, 2000, the following, except as noted, are wholly-owned
subsidiaries of Bush Industries, Inc.:

          Bush Industries of Pennsylvania, Inc., a Delaware Corporation

          Bush Industries of Ohio, Inc., a Delaware Corporation

          Bush Management, Inc., a Florida Corporation

          Bush Service Group, Inc., a Delaware Corporation

          Fournier Furniture, Inc., a Delaware Corporation

          Bush Industries De Mexico, S.A. DE C.V., a Mexican Corporation

          Bush Comercial De Mexico, S.A. DE C.V., a Mexican Corporation

          The ColorWorks, Inc., a North Carolina Corporation

          Bush Technologies, Inc., a Delaware Corporation

          Bush Viotechnik GmbH, a German Corporation

          Bush Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH, a German Corporation

          Rohr-Bush GmbH & Co., a German Limited Partnership, majority owned by
          Bush Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH
#### Edwin G. BARRETT, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Thomas L. McBENNETT, Defendant and Appellee.

No. 10844

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

Sept. 25, 1967.

Before GLADNEY, BOLIN and BAR-HAM, JJ.

Charles E. Tooke, Jr., Shreveport, for appellant.

Bodenheimer & Jones, Shreveport, for appellee.

BOLIN, Judge.

This suit was consolidated with Barrett and F. L. Foulks, Father and Natural Tutor of the Minor, Foulks v. McBennett, 203 So.2d 92. In the instant case plaintiff, as the husband of Anna P. Barrett, .sues Thomas L. McBennett for the alleged expenditure incurred by the community in renting a car for Mrs. Barrett during the time repairs were being made on her vehicle damaged in the accident outlined in the consolidated case.

Having found the accident was caused solely by the negligence of Paula Frances Foulks, daughter of Mrs. Anna P. Barrett, it necessarily follows plaintiff’s demand should be rejected.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed at appellant’s cost.

Affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

BRENDA HARRIS,

Petitioner

v.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (ALLIED BARTON SECURITY SERVICES, LLC),

Respondents :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 36 MAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the

Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 10th day of June, 2020

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
#### In the Matter of Cynthia B. Ward, Appellant, v William J. Bratton, as Police Commissioner of the City of New York, et al., Respondents.

[655 NYS2d 930]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered on or about May 16, 1996, which denied petitioner’s application pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondent’s determination dismissing her from her position as a police officer, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner was properly dismissed without a hearing, having agreed to disciplinary probation in satisfaction of departmental charges involving, *inter alia,*her relationship with an individual known to be involved in criminal activities, and, during the period of probation, having again associated with that individual before filing an untimely report of his crimes against her *(see, Matter of Prestia v Brown,*191 AD2d 224). Concur— Ellerin, J. P., Nardelli, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.
#### Elton Ray WHITE, Individually, etc., et al. v. Ernest M. LEGENDRE, Individually, etc., et al.

No. 62515.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

July 3, 1968.

In re: Bobbye E. Holland and State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, applying for certiorari or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit. Parish of East Baton Rouge. 359 So.2d 652.

Writ denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                      56,586,000
<SECURITIES>                                40,131,000
<RECEIVABLES>                               42,567,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 2,264,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           155,555,000
<PP&E>                                      36,608,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              12,936,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             184,117,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       46,423,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        27,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  67,943,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               184,117,000
<SALES>                                     22,156,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            44,800,000
<CGS>                                          573,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               14,209,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,078,473
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                383,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   131,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            252,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   252,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.01
        

</TABLE>
#### Jesse Walton RYALS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. S-105.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 17, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Nathan SCHEKTER, et ux., Appellants, v. Samuel I. ADLER, et al., Appellees. Samuel I. ADLER, et al., Appellants, v. Nathan SCHEKTER, et ux., Appellees.

Nos. 67-875, 67-876.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Feb. 6, 1968.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 27, 1968.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

See also Fla.App., 197 So.2d 46.
#### Tommie Lee GREEN v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 49910.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Sept. 14, 1977.

William 0. Semmes, Grenada, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen. by Pete J. Cajoleas, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Grenada County; Clarence E. Morgan, Jr., Judge.

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

AFFIRMED.
#### Raymond Herschel KILPATRICK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 76-237.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 24, 1978.

Rehearing Denied April 4, 1978.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, Paul M. Herman, Asst. Public Defender, and Nikki Ann Clark, Legal Intern, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Harry M. Hipler, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. See *Williams v. State,*285 So.2d 13 (Fla.1973).

DOWNEY, ANSTEAD and DAUKSCH, JJ., concur.
#### Martin Ellis BRUMIT v. STATE.

No. 38750.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 1969.

Habeas corpus denied without opinion.
262 La. 1067

#### Ernest Louis FARKAS v. JEFFERSON PARISH CRIMINAL COURT.

No. 52675.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 11, 1972.

In re: Ernest Louis Farkas applying for writs of habeas corpus and mandamus.

Writ denied. The matter is moot.
#### Mrs. Undine G. THOMAS v. Mr. and Mrs. Raymond PLAISANCE.

No. 5553.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

Aug. 7, 1973.

Donald B. Ruiz, Marrero, for plaintiff-appellant.

Absent and unrepresented for defendant-appellee.

Before REDMANN, SCHOTT and BAILES, JJ.

REDMANN, Judge.

The motion for this appeal from a February 27 judgment (notified March 2) from the Second Parish Court for the Parish of Jefferson was filed May 28. The judgment had by then become definitive, since, made applicable by R.S. 13:2562.10, C.C.P. art. 5002 allowed only ten days for appealing.

Thus plaintiff no longer had a right to appeal and therefore, under C.C.P. art. 2162, although we have already heard argument,

The appeal is dismissed.
## Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Ex parte William Antonio Alarcon Arriola

No. 06

- 23

- 00203

- CR Appeal from the County Court of Maverick

County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 32532 ).

Memorandum Opinion delivered by Justic e

van Cleef

, Chief Justice Stevens and Justice

Rambin participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, Will iam Antonio Alarcon Arriola , has adequately indicated

his inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED NOVEMBER 30, 2023

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

SCOTT E. STEVENS

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:
Debra K. Autrey , Clerk
**EXHIBIT 99.2**

** **

**FIRST INVESTORS FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC.**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

 

In connection with the accompanying QuarterlyReport of First Investors Financial Services Group, Inc. (the “Company”) onForm 10-Q for the period ended January 31, 2003 (the “Report”), I, Bennie H.Duck, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify that to myknowledge:

 
| (1)    | The Report fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934  (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and      |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                                                                   |
| (2)    | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all  material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the  Company. |

 

 
| Dated:  March 7, 2003 | /s/ BENNIE H. DUCK      |   |
|----------------------------|-------------------------|--------|
|                       | Bennie H. Duck          |   |
|                       | Chief Financial Officer |
|                            |                         |        |  |

 

### ** **

The abovecertification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q oras a separate disclosure document.

### ** **

----
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 11-51264 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. DERRICK TOMMY ROBINSON, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 6:00-CR-25-2

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Derrick Tommy Robinson, federal p r isoner # 03339-180, has applied for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in this appeal from th e d e n i a l o f his motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for a reduction of his sentence in light of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (FSA). The district court determined that Robinson was not eligible for a reduction of his sentence under the FSA. The S e n t encing Commission has amended the drug quantity table in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, effect i ve November 1, 2011. See United States Sentencing U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D June 18 , 20 12 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm inedt hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-51264 Document: 00511889440 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/18/2012No. 11-51264

Commission, Guidelines Manual, Supp. t o A p p e n d ix C

- Vol. III

, Amendment 750, at 391-98 (Nov. 1, 2011) (Amend. 750). Amendment 750, Part A, re-promulgated portions of temporary emergency A mendment 748, which altered the base offense levels for various crack cocaine quantities in the drug quantity tables of § 2D1.1(c) to conform with the new statutory sentences set out in the FSA. See id. T h e r e c ord reflects that Robinson’s offense inv o l v e d 3

. 6 7 k i l o gr a m s o f c r a c k cocaine and 1.73 kilograms of cocain e , r e sulting in a total marihuana equivalency of 24, 9 5 5

. 0 8 k i l o gr a m s . Although Amendment 750, Part A, has been made retroactively app l i c a b l e , see U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(c), it did not lower base offense levels for offenses such as Robinson’s. See Amend. 750, at 394. Because Robinson was not eligible f o r a sentence reduction under Amendment 750, he cannot show that he will present a nonfrivolous issue with respect to the district court’s denial o f h i s § 3 582(c)(2) motion. See Dillon v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2683, 2691 (2010); Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). The request for leave to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED and the appeal is DISMISSED. See Baugh v. Taylor , 117 F.3d 197, 202 & n.24 (5th Cir. 1997); 5 T H C I R
. R. 42.2.

2 Case: 11-51264 Document: 00511889440 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/18/2012
<PAGE>

                                                                  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 April 16, 2003 (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 and 2001 financial statements and (iii)
the change in the composition of reportable segments in 2003 and
reclassifications of financial statement amounts related to the 2002 and 2001
financial statements; the 2002 and 2001 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 28, 2003.


 /S/  DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
---------------------------
    Deloitte & Touche LLP

Chicago, Illinois
May 15, 2003
<PAGE> 1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 99.1


Below each General Partner's name is a list of the limited partnerships, other
than the Registrant, for which the General Partner serves as a general partner
and the companies for which the General Partner serves as a director.  The list
includes only those limited partnerships and companies which have a class of
securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 or are subject to the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Act.


Gregory J. Nooney, Jr.
----------------------

Limited Partnerships:

    Nooney Real Property Investors-Two, L.P.   Nooney Income Fund Ltd., L.P
    Nooney Real Property Investors-Four, L.P.  

Directorships:

    Nooney Realty Trust, Inc.


John J. Nooney
--------------

Limited Partnerships:

    Nooney Real Property Investors-Two, L.P.   Nooney Income Fund Ltd., L.P.
    Nooney Real Property Investors-Four, L.P.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T EA RL W A RN ER, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. M A T T H E W C A T E , e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 11- 17794 D . C . N o . 3 : 0 9 -cv -0 4 0 8 1 -JW ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o rth e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia J a m e s W a r e , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d N ove m be r13, 2012 ** B efo re: C A N B Y , T R O T T , an dW . F L E T C H E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. E ar l W arner, a C al i forni a s t at e pri soner, appeal s pro se fr om the di stri ct c ourt ’ s or de rde ny i ng hi s m ot i on f orr e l i e f f r om j udgm e nti n hi s 42 U . S . C . § 1983 ac t i on al l egi ng pri son o ff i ci al s di sc ri m i nat ed agai nsthi m w i th regard t o h i s w ork 

# FI LED NO V 20 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS11- 17794 2 as si gn m ent . W e have j uri sdi ct i on un der 28 U . S . C . § 1 29 1. W e r evi ew for an ab u s e o f d is c r e tio n , L at

shaw v. T

rai ner W ortha m & Co. , Inc. , 452 F . 3d 1097, 1100 ( 9 th Ci r . 2 0 0 6 ) , a n dw e a f f i rm. T he di s tr i c tc ourtdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng W a rne r ’ s m ot i on f or r e l i e f f r om j udgm e ntbe c aus e W a rne rf a i l e d t o s how tha tthe m e nt a l br e a kdow n he s uf f e r e d w hi l e the s um m a ryj udgm e ntm ot i on w a s pe ndi ng c ons t i tut e d aba s i s f or r e lie f f r o m th e ju d g m e n t. See F e d . R . C iv . P . 6 0 ( b ) ; Sc h. D is t. N o. 1J , Mul tnom ah Cnt y, O r. v. A Can dS

, Inc. , 5 F . 3d 1255, 1263 ( 9th C i r . 1993) ( s e tt i ng f orth gr ounds j ust i fy i ng re l i ef

). W e do n otconsi der m att er s notspec i fi ca l l y and di st i nct l y r ai se d and ar gu ed in th e o p e n in g b r ie f

, a r g u m e n ts a n da lle g a tio n s r a is e df o rth e f ir s t tim e o n ap p e a l. Se e P adge t t

v . W r i ght , 58 7 F . 3d 98 3, 98 5 n . 2 (9th C i r. 20 09 ) ( per c uri am ). AF F I RME D.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, September 14, 2015.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of

the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, September 14, 2015

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A16D0021. MARK DEWITT v. THE MAYOR & ALDERMAN FOR THE CITY OF

SAVANNAH.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this

order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

CV131192
#### Vernal A. TURNQUIST, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-928.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 5, 1974.

Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender, and Roy S. Wood, Jr., Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Stephen V. Rosin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on the authority of Hargrett v. State, Fla.App.1971, 255 So.2d 298; § 924.-33, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.
#### Edward CALDERIN, Petitioner, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, etc., et al., Respondents.

No. 42258.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 31, 1972.

Certiorari denied.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JOSHUA LEE DIEGDIO,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 36 WAL 2024

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 29th day of May, 2024

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.

Justice McCaffery did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.