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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM PEDIA.COM,
INC. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AT MARCH 31, 2000 AND THE THREE MONTHS THEN ENDED AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         108,886
<SECURITIES>                                     3,750
<RECEIVABLES>                                   56,200
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               230,587
<PP&E>                                         408,052
<DEPRECIATION>                                 270,707
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 372,733
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          203,717
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      1,000
<COMMON>                                         5,280
<OTHER-SE>                                     162,736
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   372,733
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                63,900
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              20,584
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (83,782)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (83,782)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

SHARQAWI ABDU ALI AL-HAJJ, )

)

Petitioner, )

) Civil Action No. 09 -745 (RCL)

v. )

)

BARACK OBAMA, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

__________________________________________)

 ORDER

Upon consideration of Respondents’ Consent Motion for Enlargement of Time to

Respond to the Discovery Order entered September 4, 2009, it is hereby

ORDERED that the Respondents are allowed until November 4, 2009, to complete the

ordered discovery.

SO ORDERED.

Date: 10/5/2009 ____/s/_______________

ROYCE C. LAMBERTH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

SONY CORPORATION,

Appellant

v.

FUJIFILM CORPORATION,

Appellee

______________________

2018-1421

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2016-

01183.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

MATTHEW A. SMITH, Smith Baluch LLP, Menlo Park, 

CA, argued for appellant. 

 ELIOT DAMON WILLIAMS, Baker Botts LLP, Palo Alto, 

CA, argued for appellee. Also represented by DAVID TOBIN, 

Dallas, TX; ROBERT LAWRENCE MAIER, ROBERT C.

SCHEINFELD, New York, NY. 

 ______________________

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 
ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

 PER CURIAM (WALLACH, TARANTO, and STOLL, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

February 8, 2019 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

 Date Peter R. Marksteiner

 Clerk of Court
|   | 1.     | The Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010 (the “Form 10-Q”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|--------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|   | 2.     | Information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.                                                                                             |

|   | Dated: November 4, 2010 | By:   /s/ DAVID T. TABER      |   |
|--------|-------------------------|-----------------------------------------|--------|
|   |                    | David T. Taber                          |   |
|   |                    | President and Chief Executive Officer   |   |
|   |                    |                                    |   |
|   | Dated: November 4, 2010 | By:   /s/ MITCHELL A. DERENZO |   |
|   |                    | Mitchell A. Derenzo                     |   |
|   |                    | Executive Vice President and            |   |
|   |                    | Chief Financial Officer                 |   |

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6968

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JOHN LEE BOYD, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior

District Judge. (5:93-cr-00123-F-3)

Submitted: August 26, 2010 Decided: September 7, 2010

Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Lee Boyd, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., 

Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

John Lee Boyd, Jr., appeals the district court’s order 

denying relief on his motion to enforce the plea agreement. We 

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. United States v. Boyd, No. 5:93-cr-00123-F-3 (E.D.N.C. 

June 30, 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
<PAGE>
           SUBSIDIARIES OF FIRST NATIONWIDE (PARENT) HOLDINGS, INC. 

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
 NAME                                                     STATE OF INCORPORATION 
--------------------------------------------------------  ------------------------------- 
<S>                                                       <C>
1. FNB Holdings, Inc..................................... Texas 
2. FNB Mortgage Corp..................................... California 
3. First Prudential Corporation.......................... Missouri 
4. Niles Investment Company.............................. Illinois 
5. FN Investment Center.................................. California 
6. FN Investment of New York............................. New York 
7. Cal Fed Investment Services........................... California 
8. Franciscan Financial Corporation...................... California 
9. San Francisco Auxiliary Corporation................... California 
10. Capital Conveyance Company........................... California 
11. Development Credit Corporation....................... California 
12. Cal Fed Syndications................................. California 
13. California Communities, Inc.......................... California 
14. Cal Fed Service Corporation.......................... California 
15. Cal Fed Credit, Inc.................................. California 
16. Cal Fed Credit of Texas, Inc......................... Texas 
17. Cal Fed Enterprises.................................. California 
18. CFE Potrero Corporation.............................. California 
19. CF Management Corp................................... California 
20. CF Recovery Corp. One................................ California 
21. CF Recovery Corp. Two................................ California 
22. Crabtree Valley Hotel, Inc........................... North Carolina 
23. Point Clear Bay Hotel, Inc........................... Alabama 
24. Cal Fed Mortgage Company............................. California 
25. XCF Acceptance Corporation........................... California 
26. FNB Real Estate Corp................................. Texas 
27. FGB Realty Advisors, Inc............................. Texas 
28. California Federal Preferred Capital Corporation .... Maryland 
29. First Nationwide Mortgage Corporation................ Delaware 
30. FNC Insurance Agency, Inc............................ California 
31. Cal Fed Insurance Agency, Inc........................ California 
32. FNMC Mortgage Services, Inc.......................... Delaware 
33. First Nationwide Mortgage Services, Inc.............. Texas 
34. Master Mortgage Company.............................. California 
35. Sierra Network....................................... California 
36. FN Investment Center of Nevada....................... Nevada 
37. California Federal Bank, A Federal Savings Bank ..... chartered under federal law 
38. First Nationwide Holdings Inc........................ Delaware 
</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT IN THE INTEREST OF: J.A. PETITION OF: J.A. : : : : : No. 233 MAL 2015 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 1st day of September, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED

.
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 25 (Tuesday, February 6, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8225-8226]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-02362]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4539-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2024-0001]


Washington; Amendment No. 6 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Washington (FEMA-4539-DR), dated April 23, 2020, and 
related determinations.

DATES: This change occurred on January 19, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and 
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency 
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the 
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Lance E. Davis, 
of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for 
this disaster.
    This action terminates the appointment of Toney L. Raines as 
Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, 
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis 
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster 
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance 
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and 
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing 
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other 
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance

[[Page 8226]]

(Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation 
Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2024-02362 Filed 2-5-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 28, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-41198

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ENRIQUE EUGENIO-SALVADOR, also known as Jose

Hernandez-Ramirez,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:04-CR-174

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

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Enrique Eugenio-Salvador (Eugenio) appeals from the sentence

imposed following his guilty plea to illegal reentry. He argues

for the first time on appeal that his Texas conviction for unlawful

restraint did not constitute a “crime of violence” for purposes of

a U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii)(2004) enhancement. 

Our review is for plain error only. See United States v.

Villegas, 404 F.3d 355, 358 (2005). The 16-level enhancement is to

be made only if the prior offense is a violation of a statute that
No. 05-41198

-2-

has as an element “the use, attempted use, or threatened use of

physical force against the person of another.” United States v.

Calderon-Pena, 383 F.3d 254, 255 (5th Cir. 2004) (en banc). The

Texas unlawful restraint statute provides for the commission of the

offense in a number of different ways, some of which do not require

the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against

a person. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 20.01 & 20.02 (Vernon 1995).

Because the Texas statute does not require that such use of force

be proved as an element of the offense, the district court plainly

erred in assigning the 16-level enhancement. See Calderon-Pena,

383 F.3d at 259-61; United States v. Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d 268, 275

(5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). This error

affected his substantial rights and affected the fairness and

integrity of the judicial proceedings. See Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d

at 275. Accordingly, Eugenio’s sentence is VACATED, and the case

is REMANDED for resentencing.
#### Nelson BREEZE, Appellant, v. ROSEDALE PARK, Inc., Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Oct. 19, 1956.





...PER. CURIAM.,

This, is a motion for an appeal', from a judgment awarding appellee, ..Rosedale Park, Inc., $2,500 against appellant, Nelson Breeze, for the rental of two amusement rides, a little dipper and a ferris wheel. ’ Ap-pellee’s complaint alleged a flat rental, of $2,500 was due him. Appellant’s answer was a denial and a plea that he agreed to pay 15% of the receipts after the deduction of all tayes and repairs, and he paid into the lower court $432.02, the amount he asserted to be due under the 15% agreement. Thus the amount in controversy is $2,067.-98, and KRS 21.080 governs this appeal.

The court tried the action without a jury and,, under the evidence introduced, gave appellee judgment for $2,500. We believe the evidence supports the judgment, since this was .purely 'a fact case, and, having regard for CR 52.01, we- conclude the judgment must stand.

We also are of the view that appellee’s witness, John F. Dehnert, was properly qualified to testify concerning the value of the use of the equipment.

Other questions were raised, which we deem it unnecessary to consider.

Wherefore, the motion for an appeal is overruled and the judgment is affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 21 (Wednesday, January 31, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6175-6178]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-01918]



[[Page 6175]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Office of Foreign Assets Control


Notice of OFAC Sanctions Actions

AGENCY: Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets 
Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons that have 
been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked 
Persons List (SDN List) based on OFAC's determination that one or more 
applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in 
property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons are blocked, and 
U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions 
with them.

DATES: See Supplementary Information section for applicable date(s).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: OFAC: Associate Director for Global 
Targeting, tel.: 202-622-2420; Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 
202-622-2480; Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, tel.: 202-622-
4855; or Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, 
tel.: 202-622-2490.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Availability

    The SDN List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions 
programs are available on OFAC's website (www.treasury.gov/ofac).

Notice of OFAC Actions

    On November 30, 2023, OFAC determined that the property and 
interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following 
persons are blocked under the relevant sanctions authority listed 
below.
BILLING CODE 4810-AL-P

[[Page 6176]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN31JA24.074


[[Page 6177]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN31JA24.075


[[Page 6178]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN31JA24.076

BILLING CODE 4810-AL-C
    Authorities: E.O. 13382, 70 FR 38567, 3 CFR, 2005 Comp., p. 170; 
E.O. 13551, 75 FR 53837, 3 CFR, 2010 Comp., p.242; E.O. 13687, 80 FR 
819, 3 CFR, 2015 Comp., p. 259; E.O. 13722, 81 FR 14943, 3 CFR, 2016 
Comp., p. 446; E.O. 13810, 82 FR 44705, 3 CFR, 2017 Comp., p. 379

    Dated: November 30, 2023.
Gregory T. Gatjanis,
Associate Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control, U.S. Department 
of the Treasury.
[FR Doc. 2024-01918 Filed 1-30-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-AL-P
#### Mark Anthony GLENN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Commonwealth of VIRGINIA; Ron Angelone; Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 02-7861.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 6, 2003.

Decided Feb. 13, 2003.

Mark Anthony Glenn, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Mark Anthony Glenn appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). When, as here, a district court dismisses a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’ ” *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.) (quoting *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000)), *cert. denied,*534 U.S. 941, 122 S.Ct. 318, 151 L.Ed.2d 237 (2001). We have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Glenn has not made the requisite showing. *See Glenn v. Virginia,*No. CA-02-809-7 (W.D.Va. Oct. 31, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). 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.

*DISMISSED.*
-1- 



    	 



    








    	-2- 



    	 



    








    	-3- 



    	 



    








    	-4- 



    	 



    








    	-5- 



    	 



    








    	-6- 



    	 



    








    	-7- 



    	 



    








    	-8- 



    	 



    








    	-9- 



    	 



    








    	-10- 



    	 



    








    	-11- 



    	 



    








    	-12- 



    	 



    








    	-13- 



    	 



    








    	-14- 



    	 



    








    	-15- 



    	 



    








    	-16- 



    	 



    








    	-17- 



    	 



    








    	-18- 



    	 



    








    	-19- 



    	 



    








    	-20- 



    	 



    








    	-21- 



    	 



    








    	-22- 



    	 



    








    	-23- 



    	 



    








    	-24- 



    	 



    








    	-25- 



    	 



    








    	-26- 



    	 



    








    	-27- 



    	 



    








    	-28- 



    	 



    








    	-29- 



    	 



    








    	-30- 



    	 



    








    	-31- 



    	 



    








    	-32-
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Reports. Please 1 see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. 2 Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated 3 errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does 4 not include the filing date. 5 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 6 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, ex rel., 7 HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT 8 and ANGELA HAZELET, 9 Petitioners-Appellees, 10
v. NO. 30,761 11 MARK ARNAUDVILLE, 12 Respondent-Appellant. 13
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 14 Angela J. Jewell, District Judge 15 New Mexico Human Services Department 16 Reina Owen DeMartino 17 Albuquerque, NM 18 for Appellees 19 Mark Arnaudville 20 Albuquerque, NM 21 Pro Se Appellant 22
MEMORANDUM OPINION 23 KENNEDY, Judge. 242 Summary affirmance in part and summary reversal in part was proposed in a 1 second notice of proposed summary dispos ition. No memorandum in opposition has 2 been filed by any party and the time for doing so has expired. 3 Therefore, for the reasons set forth in the second notice of proposed summary 4 disposition, the district court’s order isAFFIRMED IN PART andREVERSED IN 5 PART. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7

_______________________________ 8 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge 9
WE CONCUR: 10

_________________________ 11 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge 12

_________________________ 13 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge 14
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-0162

_____________________________

MAURICE WILLIAMS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

Martin A. Fitzpatrick, Judge.

June 5, 2018

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

MAKAR, WINOKUR, and WINSOR, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Maurice Williams, pro se, Appellant.
2

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Kaitlin Weiss, Assistant 

Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.