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

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF VOLUNTEER BANCORP, INC. FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH
31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                       2,323,277
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             3,120,172
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 26,641,584
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                       1,358,594
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                         1,359,551
<LOANS>                                     61,656,282
<ALLOWANCE>                                    840,974
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              99,706,001
<DEPOSITS>                                  90,029,494
<SHORT-TERM>                                 1,655,888
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            928,554
<LONG-TERM>                                  2,790,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,390
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,296,675
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              99,706,001
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              1,418,762
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              406,122
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                40,175
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             1,865,059
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             966,118
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,038,091
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          826,968
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   60,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                              28,624
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                671,479
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                207,531
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     141,016
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   141,016
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.26
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.12
<LOANS-NON>                                     15,661
<LOANS-PAST>                                   433,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               810,563
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   30,216
<RECOVERIES>                                       627
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              840,974
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           840,974
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
#### Linda Tanner NICHOLS, Appellant, v. Pearlie SIZEMORE, Alton Sizemore and Safeco Insurance Company, a corporation, Appellees.

No. N-384.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 3, 1971.

Blalock, Holbrook, Lewis, Paul & Bennett, Jacksonville, for appellant.

Howell, Kirby, Montgomery, D’Aiuto, Dean & Hallowes, Jacksonville, for appel-lees.

PER CURIAM.

The Court has considered the record, arguments, and briefs in this matter. The Appellant has failed to demonstrate the existence of harmful error. Therefore, the judgment appealed from is—

Affirmed.

WIGGINTON, Acting C. J., RAWLS, J., and MELVIN, WOODROW M., Associate Judge, concur.
#### Nathaniel ANDREWS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-538.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 15, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED April 22, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-51099 Conference Calendar

LLOYD GEORGE BOWERS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus BENNY BOYKIN; KENNETH HULLUM; CEDRIC CADDELL, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. W-02-CV-214

-------------------- Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Lloyd George Bowers, Texas prisoner # 1019169, seeks to appeal in forma pauperis (IFP) the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. He argues that the letter he wrote to internal affairs regarding his assault was tantamount to filing Step 1 and Step 2 grievances for exhaustion purposes. The merits of Bowers’s appeal are “inextricably intertwined with the certification decision,” and, therefore, we also entertain the issue whether the appeal shouldNo. 02-51099 -2-

2 Spears v. McCotter , 766 F.2d 179, 180 (5th Cir. 1985). be dismissed. See Baugh v. Taylor , 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Bowers conceded that he did not file either a Step 1 or Step 2 grievance. See Wendell v. Asher , 162 F.3d 887, 891 (5th Cir. 1998). If it is assumed arguendo that Bowers could also exhaust his administrative remedies by opening a case with the internal affairs division, the Spears 2 testimony nevertheless confirmed that the investigation was incomplete and that his grievance was thus unresolved at the administrative level. The magistrate judge therefore did not err in determining that he had failed to exhaust administrative remedies and in dismissing his civil rights complaint. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Richardson v. Spurlock , 260 F.3d 495, 499 (5th Cir. 2001). Bowers’s allegations of retaliation are raised for the first time on appeal and are therefore not considered. See Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co. , 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999). Bowers has not established that an appeal would not involve nonfrivolous issues. We therefore deny his motions for IFP status and for appointment of counsel and dismiss the appeal as frivolous in the interest of judicial efficiency. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2; Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Bowers is cautioned that the dismissal of this appeal as frivolous counts as a “strike” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 385-87 (5thNo. 02-51099 -3- Cir. 1996). Bowers is further cautioned that if he accumulates three “strikes” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), he may not proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
IFP MOTION DENIED; MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL DENIED; THREE-STRIKES WARNING ISSUED; APPEAL DISMISSED.
DEPARTMENT OF OOMMEROE AND LAGOR-BUREAU OF THE OENSUS

bh

awe oF nconronsreo mace é

THIRTEENTH CENSUS OF THE UNITED STATES; 1910--POPU!

a r|

: 93

cS.

bine
1 tg

ds
ES

Historic census records are maintained and released by the National Archives and Records Administration, not the U.S. Census Bureau.

mae
Rees
MV SES

a

SFE CE
ie

ef
at d
Para igeh) | lysines
Sab LS
Pla mig: sill) fe fo
fa Aeaa fee) Seder
lke ef |

SRP SETS

es]

are

REE RYSEEE

Visit http://www.orchives.gov for more information about publicly available records like the one shown here.

Pepi

YF

lites). |g —| Lope
|

¥

FRIIS

a5
ai

Fak

Soy
La

AS:

SS

wer

ye

Ts

Y

wh

a
SS

o

+3

Ty
Baa

on

Z
cy

ak
44
St

a= SS
i

PE peg
Ol.

on |

ue oF gr. Ta

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE—BUREAU OF THE CENSU

do
. xem

FOURTEENTH OENSUS OF THE UNITED STATES; ei ss’ {
rns oF wconronared nace. heehee nM < (a Le Nd Can mosey

Totb ecay d3

{ceimliane rete

nse 4 Fou At

Eugene ov we on 16.049,

gaan or Lassa ne Mra ella.

surenvisors Distaic No... 42. | SHEET NO:
Enunsnanion Disraicr Ho...2.82.

Wana oF cir

ae

Mey. enon off

her.

rele calf [1 Hi |i "wearapees PIE
Se HUAR Hilde aad
my Rife... Weg a aval te pelgs| Fadacod Vga. Rate rhag wT
ma Me Mate BVA ie the Sealeed: Lala | A %
fipras ie Le he fn Meo) s ah ah ran
Lae aa 7p Meal ag aoe, pes z
mee ae lel aeaelou | “le lage #
ian es 3 rm Pa imal rec raat 5
eg tego Pea TMV Pete atieg neh pcd Pp Ligation
Historic census records are maintained and released by the National Archives and Records Administration, not the U.S. Census Bureau. 4
Visit http://www.archives.gov for more information about publicly available records like the one shown here. =
Bey aol ig {
Watecea | — At. ire
A id Z
Vel et” deci
ate Wade
191 [lial Hi

oasis

SDREESbdd sod sae

sie |

persertes@eusseeres

EY RES ESSERE

3

ae
iS

Ish hl Peak Ripa Bi a ise

ia =

beefing
arate
ete
i
a i
plete

st
|
alRemlole.

ges

rr _ va
hile pal ae laste } 4 WA
er Bee Ha a ee reno. (al #
E 2M | MORSE on
i a 2 fe See” A
Sarai is pel Aenea
fi # lel Ad Lys ia
Flge| a] ba’ He | ac
vats elena i
#### HERNANDEZ v. SAXONY HOTEL.

No. 36533.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 1967.

Certiorari' dismissed without opinion.
#### Carlton Lee FIELDS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 66-1004.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District

Sept. 19, 1967.

Robert L. Koeppel, Public Defender, and Marvin J. Emor.y, Jr., Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Barry N. Semet and Arden Siegendorf, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellee.

Before PEARSON, BARKDULL and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from a summary denial of appellant’s petition pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule I, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix. It affirmatively appears from the record presented that the petition was properly denied by the trial court because the court will not consider successive petitions based upon the same ground. See Smith v. State, Fla. App.1965, 180 So.2d 675; Whitney v. State, Fla.App. 1966, 184 So.2d 207.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

DECEMBER 28, 2006

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 06-14650

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 05-01327-CV-T-30-MSS

CYNTHIA S. PHILLIPS,

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

versus 

AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

_________________________

(December 28, 2006)

Before WILSON, PRYOR and HILL, Circuit Judges.
2

PER CURIAM:

This case was brought and settled. The parties accepted the benefits of the

release and settlement agreement. With buyer’s remorse, plaintiff returned to the

district court and asked that the case be reopened. The district court found that the

plaintiff’s case had been fully and finally resolved by settlement. The matter was

dismissed and the case closed. No appeal was taken.

Now plaintiff returns to the district court for a third time on the same facts,

this time claiming a breach of the settlement agreement, in that she preserved her

right to additional lost wages. Defendant, while conceding plaintiff preserved this

right, contends that it also preserved its right to accept or reject her claim. Here the

defendant claims that it denied her claim, the matter is over and done with, and, as

a matter of law, plaintiff’s claim is barred by the doctrines of res judicata or

collateral estoppel. We agree.

We have carefully reviewed the record in the case, the settlement agreement,

the briefs and the arguments of counsel contained therein. Finding no error, we

affirm the judgment of the district court based upon the well reasoned twelve-page

report and recommendation of the magistrate judge dated May 26, 2006, as

adopted by the district court. 

AFFIRMED.
rigs

~“ (

Nw | on
An Enumeration of the Inhabit-} |

N :
S | ants of th the town of ead cach ene Had of Fin)

Free white Females;

Free shite. Males of 16
years'and upwards
Free white Males, under
16 years

e All other free Perfons.

i
P F bt iE: ” ‘ = i bout Joust 265} 2.28 bab.
| | i
q

ce white: Males, scaler
16 ‘years

r

ee white ‘Males of 16
years old, and upwards.

Names of Heads of Familics.

)

{
A
4
4

| A

inns ical | A

ium. Shattuck |

S Uae. S trocttur 2

lac, Sane 4 {

| How Shottuek { oe | \

I oarcal Shodtuck| 3 q

ase Nottarrk'ys 5

| Sho 3 eotts

Sob? Shrottuek”

Mott Sicthihe
Sobek

yD
r
4.
9
4
Ay
4
A
2
9)
9
A
a
wi
mf"
A

Yuh. § cin ott
a. Tor okt

oy Jounomes

N RAMA acl doctaeeiciie
A aint Nini

Jerr

ee
J Visit http://www.archives.gov for more information about publicly available records like the one shown here.
re

Historic census records are maintained and released by the National Archives and Records Administration, not the U.S. Census Bureau.

“) : JUIN FF Wane

: BP of Mbtioumes bap
v1 oF OAL:
Tos r Siriaas My inns | A

Hohn Siocie Whi aws 4

Thad Millions fl
#### AETNA INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MONTGOMERY WARD & COMPANY, Inc. and James L. Wilson, Defendants-Appellees-Appellants.

No. 3164.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

July 2, 1970.

Stafford, Pitts & Bolen, by James Small, for plaintiff-appellant.

McLoughlin, Barrenger, West, Provosty & Melancon, by Lloyd C. Melancon, New Orleans, Lewis & Lewis, by John M. Shaw, Opelousas, and Laborde & St. Romain, by: P. J. Laborde, Jr., Marksville, for defendants-appellees.

Before FRUGÉ, CULPEPPER and MILLER, JJ.

MILLER, Judge.

This is one of three consolidated lawsuits arising out of a fire of unknown origin: For the reasons assigned in Guiffre v. *408Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., La.App., 237 So.2d 402, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. All costs of this appeal are taxed one-half to plaintiffs and one-half to defendants.

Affirmed.
#### Mack TEDDER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-803.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 5, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 21, 1974.

*331James A. Gardner, Public Defender, and Elliott C. Metcalfe, Jr., Asst. Public Defender, Bradenton, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Guy E. LaBalme, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

HOBSON, Acting C. J., and GRIMES, J., concur.

McNULTY, J., dissents with opinion.

McNULTY, Judge

(dissenting).

I dissent. This appeal is from an order revoking appellant’s probation and imposing a prison sentence. The original order of probation included a provision requiring appellant to “pay restitution of one-third of all damages, loss and destruction arising out of crimes committed in Manatee County” payable at the rate of $10.00 per week. Though the record is silent on it I assume that this condition related only to specific offenses which were within the mutual knowledge of the sentencing court and appellant. In any case, the trial court found that appellant violated that condition.

The sole evidence presented by the state in support of revocation was the testimony of appellant’s parole supervisors who testified merely that to their knowledge appellant did not make the required restitution payments. Neither of the two supervisors who testified made an investigation as to why such payments were not made, nor did they make inquiry of appellant as to why. Appellant presented his own testimony and that of his wife and of his mother, all of whom testified as to the difficulties appellant was having getting a job, getting paid for the work he in fact did do on occasion, the transportation difficulties he was having getting to and from work in his old infirm automobile on those occasions when he did have employment and as to his other personal problems as an 18 year old husband and expectant father.

The trial court made no findings concerning appellant’s ability to comply with the subject condition or as to the willfulness of noncompliance. In my view, the mere noncompliance with such condition cannot be the basis for revocation of probation absent a finding of ability to comply and a willful noncompliance. Probation is a grace, concededly. But once imposed it assumes certain essentials of a right; and it cannot be revoked arbitrarily or without sufficient basis upon which to predicate an intentional violation thereof. A revocation of probation proceeding is not a *de novo*opportunity to impose a prison sentence.

I would reverse.
### SAT Report PMN Number: P-14-0039 SAT Date: 11/5/2013 Print Date: 6/4/2014

Related cases : Health related cases:

Concern levels : Type of Concern: Health Eco Comments Level of Concern: 1-2 2

Persistence Bioaccum Toxicity Comments 1 11

Exposure Based Review : Health: N o Ecotox: N o
Routes of exposure : Health: Dermal Inhalation Ecotox: All releases to water Fate: ; Keywords : Keywords: IRR-E; SENS-S; UNCERT NEURO; AQUATOX-A,C
Summary of Assessment :

Fate : Fate Summary: P-14-0039 FATE: Estimations for low weight Solid with MP = 310 C (E) log Kow = -5.48 (E) S > 10 g/L at 25 C (E) VP < 1.0E-6 torr at 25 C (E) BP > 400 C (E) H < 1.00E-8 (E) log Koc = 1.00 (E) log Fish BCF = 0.50 (E) log Fish BAF = -0.05 (E)POTW removal (%) = 0-90 via sorption; OECD 301B(Mod Sturm CO2 ev): 80%/28d RB. Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg = wk-mo Sorption to soils/sediments = moderate - strong PBT Potential: P1B1 *CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = negl - slow

Health : Health Summary: Absorption is moderate through the GI tract and good through the lung, while absorption of the neat material is nil through the skin, but poor through the skin for the material in solution, based on physical/chemical properties. Expect some digestion of the PMN substance in the GI tract. There are concerns for eye irritation and skin sensitization, as well as uncertain concern for neurotoxicity, based on compounds. Test Data: Submitted with the PMN (read across data for analogs

N egative in the Salmonells assay with and without activation; N egative in the E. coli reverse mutation assay with and without activation; N ot a dermal irritant in humans (EPISKIN in vitro test); N ot a dermal irritant in humans (EpiDerm Skin Model in vitro Toxicity Test); N ot a dermal irritant in humans (Repeat Patch Insult in vivo test); N ot a dermal irritant in humans (Occlusive Patch in vivo test); Slight eye irritant in humans (Ocular Irritancy Potentials Test on cultured fibroblasts); Slight eye irritant in chickens (Hen's Egg Chorioallantoic Membrane Test); N ot an eye irritant in humans (Skinethic Reconstituted Human Corneal Model test);

Ecotox :
Test Organism Test Type Test End Point Predicted Measured Comments

fish 96-h LC50 6.3 daphnid 48-h LC50 3.1 green algal 96-h EC50 1.7 fish

_ chronic value 0.63 daphnid

_ chronic value 0.31

algal

_ chronic value 0.63

Sewage Sludge 3-h EC50

_ Sewage Sludge

_ Chronic Value _

Ecotox Values Comments: Predictions are based on SAR nearest analog for Amphoteric SAR chemical class = Amphoteric MW 269; p H7; effective concentrations based on 100% active ingredients and nominal concentrations; hardness <180.0mg/L as CaCO3; and TOC <2.0 mg/L;

Factors Values Comments Assessment Factor 10 Concentration of Concern ( p pb) 31

SARs amphoteric SAR Class -amphoteric Ecotox Category N one

Ecotox Factors Comments:

SAT Chair: J. Kwiat, 564-7653
#### In the Matter of the Petition for Adoption by John Clifton BARRETT, Jr. and Beverly Thomas Seal Barrett v. Richard L. SEAL.

No. 50667.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Sept. 27, 1978.

Joseph M. Stinson, Tylertown, for appellant.

Sebe Dale, Columbia, for appellee.

Appeal from Chancery Court, Walthall County; Bert H. Jones, Chancellor.

Before PATTERSON, C. J., SUGG and BOWLING, JJ., and EDWARD C. PRI-SOCK, Commissioner.

AFFIRMED.
#### In re ESTATE of Evelyn Y. ARBORIO, Deceased. In re ESTATE of Timothy B. ARBORIO, Deceased. BOB PAUL, INC., Appellant, v. Maria ARBORIO, Appellee.

No. 72-607.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 23, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
##### 



Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, Frederic T. Boyer, Chief Financial Officer of
Qualstar Corporation (the Company), certify,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



| |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (1) the Annual Report on Form 10-K of
    the Company for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2004 (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 780(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: September 24, 2004



| |                        
| | -----------------------
| | /s/ FREDERIC T. BOYER  
| |                        
| | Frederic T. Boyer      
| | Chief Financial Officer
HeinOnline --- 42 Federal Register No. 81 page 21472 (1977)HeinOnline --- 42 Federal Register No. 81 page 21473 (1977)HeinOnline --- 42 Federal Register No. 81 page 21474 (1977)