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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           3,781
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                 1,588
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    173,626
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           9,425
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             9,568
<LOANS>                                        199,491
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,684
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 406,981
<DEPOSITS>                                     195,537
<SHORT-TERM>                                   107,777
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              5,100
<LONG-TERM>                                     38,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        60,567
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 406,981
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 14,240
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               13,614
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                27,854
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               2,852
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              18,401
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            9,453
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                (427)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  6,191
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,182
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       4,182
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,887
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    $0.45
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    $0.44
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                       0
<LOANS-NON>                                      2,296
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  2,296
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,691
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        7
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,684
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,684
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7073

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ALONZO NEIL BROWN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. 

(2:09-cr-00295-DCN-3; 2:12-cv-00286-DCN)

Submitted: September 23, 2014 Decided: September 26, 2014

Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, 

Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alonzo Neil Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Sean Kittrell, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Alonzo Neil Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s 

orders denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion and his Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 59(e) motion. The orders are not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of 

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of 

the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) 

(2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s 

assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court 

denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must 

demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the 

denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Brown has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

Additionally, we construe Brown’s notice of appeal and 

informal brief as an application to file a second or successive 

§ 2255 motion. United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 
3

(4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a 

successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on 

either:

(1) newly discovered evidence that . . . would be 

sufficient to establish by clear and convincing 

evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have 

found the movant guilty of the offense; or

(2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive 

to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, 

that was previously unavailable.

28 U.S.C. § 2255(h) (2012). Brown’s claims do not satisfy 

either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to 

file a successive § 2255 motion.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 32.2
                                  ------------

                             CERTIFICATE 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 Transition Report of Integrated Healthcare
Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period from January 1,
2004 to December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the "Report"), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates
indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      1.    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
            15(d), as applicable, 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 result of operations
            of the Company at the dates and for the period indicated.

      This Certificate has not been, and shall not be deemed, "filed" with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.


      Dated:  March 31, 2005        By:  /s/ James T. Ligon
                                         -------------------------------
                                         James T. Ligon
                                         Chief Financial Officer
2006 Director Compensation Plan



 Exhibit 10.55 
 ARTHROCARE CORPORATION 
 2006 DIRECTOR COMPENSATION 
 Effective 04/01/06 
 Cash Compensation
and Fees 
  

				
	 Annual Retainer: Member of Board of Directors
	  	$	15,000
		
	 Annual Retainer
	  		
	 Lead Director
	  	$	30,000
	 Audit Chair
	  	$	30,000
	 Compensation Chair
	  	$	25,000
	 Nom/Governance Chair
	  	$	20,000
	 Audit Committee Member
	  	$	2,500
		
	 Board Meeting Fees
	  		
	 Board meetings in person
	  	$	2,000
	 Board telephonic (< 2 hours)
	  	$	500
	 Board telephonic (> 2 hours)
	  	$	1,000

 Committee Meeting Fees* 
  

				
	 In conjunction with an in person board meeting
	  	 	no fee
	 Telephonic**
	  	$	 500 per hour

 Stock Ownership and Equity Compensation 
  

	 	1.	Guideline: All Directors will be encouraged to own ArthroCare stock valued at five times the base annual cash retainer ($15,000 effective 4/1/06) within four years of their election
to the board. 

  

	 	2.	Initial Equity Grant: Upon election to the Board, a new director will receive 25,000 stock appreciation rights and $75,000 worth of restricted stock units, the exact number of which
is determinable based on the closing price of the Company’s common stock on the date prior to grant. 

  

	 	3.	Annual Equity Grant: Upon annual reelection to the Board, each director will receive 10,000 stock appreciation rights and 1,500 restricted stock units. 

 * Committee Chair is responsible for annual committee meeting budget and advising CFO when meetings that warrant fees have been held. 
 ** Telephonic meetings that are short (less than a half hour), should be added together with another similar length meeting to constitute one meeting of an hour in
length. Meetings, such as Audit, which often run two hours or more, will be billed at $500 per hour, with only extra half hours accrued towards the next meeting.
#### LEDFORD v. COMMONWEALTH.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Feb. 15, 1952.

Ollie James Cockrell, Jackson, for appellant.

J. D. Buckman, Jr., Atty. Gen., John B. Browning, Asst. Atty. Gen., J. Douglas Graham, Commonwealth’s Atty., Campton, for appellee.

CAMMACK, Chief Justice.

Dam -Ledford Was sentenced to five years in prison on a charge of storehouse breaking. We are asked to reverse the judgment on the grounds that (1) the trial judge made a prejudicial statement about the affidavit as to the testimony of three witnesses which was read to prevent a continuance of the case; and (2) it was improper for the Commonwealth’s Attorney to comment on the failure of a codefend-ant to testify.

At the conclusion of the reading of the affidavit the trial judge told the jury: “Gentlemen of the jury, the evidence read here is what is supposed to be the evidence of Dan Bush, Paul Cole and James (Blue) Herald.”

When counsel for Ledford moved to set aside the swearing of the jury the judge immediately corrected his statement by saying: “This is the evidence of the witnesses.” The motion to set aside the swearing ctf the jury was overruled.

In Barnett v. Commonwealth, 225 Ky. 585, 9 S.W.2d 715, it is pointed *457out that it is improper for a prosecuting attorney to make a statement discrediting an affidavit stating what an absent witness would say, when read as a deposition to avoid a continuance. Obviously, the same rule would apply to a statement of a trial judge. Objection is directed to the use of the word “supposed” by the trial judge in his first statement about the affidavit. The judge corrected this statement immediately by telling the jury that the affidavit was the evidence of the absent witnesses. Under the circumstances, we do not believe the substantial rights of Led-ford were prejudiced.

It is provided in KRS 455.090 that the failure of a defendant to testify in his own behalf shall not be commented upon. This rule does not prohibit the Commonwealth’s Attorney from commenting upon the failure olf a codefendant to testify. See Davis v. Commonwealth, 191 Ky. 242, 229 S.W. 1029; Canada v. Commonwealth, 262 Ky. 177, 89 S.W.2d 880.

Judgment affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350.

In connection with the Annual Report of GSV, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB
for the period  ending  December 31, 2005 (the  "Report"),  I, Gilad Gat,  Chief
Executive  Officer,  Chief  Financial  Officer  and  President  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:

1) The Report fully complies with the  requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of operations.

Date: March 30, 2006


                                By:     /s/ Gilad Gat
                                        --------------
                                        Gilad Gat
                                        Chief Executive Officer and
                                        Chief Financial Officer
#### HENRY SMERNOFF *v.*ORANGE RESEARCH, INC., ET AL.

*Charles B. Angelo,*in support of the petition.

Decided June 17, 1998

The defendants’ petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court (AC 18066) is denied.
p. 1 

# OAR Box 1208 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 121 ) ll-E- 7 Docket Number: 

# A-89-1 0

Printed 5/9/2008 10:08:23 AM

Sheet 121 of 127P. 2



# i ' 'Li l 

# I **__._____

lll l l___l^__E_^^^^___i_____^ ^ 9H___P^^B \ 

### < g © K S C P © H

_A_ • D c_ n



## ^ _n i ^" n 

## ^ II-E- 7

Dat e 

# / / 

# .U-. 7 CONTAC TREPOR T Originato r 

# ore CONTAC TBY : TELEPHON E Jg ( MEETIN G D Othe r NAME , TITL E & ORGANIZATIO N 

### / o ^ ro o _

-e . r ADDRESS & TELEPHON E NUMBE R f££ A J s . ^. j PURPOS E OR SUBJEC

T(Giv e projec t numberi

fappropriate

) 

## C o _£ 0 

## f£

•-bA* ' SUMMAR Y 

## Co, oyy\ QU.. ' 

### ^ ^ f-/-

_/.//o^.vh s c 0 

### . f . er f a . <^-___J^4~ ^ 

### f^ya , . ;

(_-•.<>_/• 1 .._ $ 

### J_ ^

, . aiC - V . ./

* . < A* W - *->_( , - . iW ? ^ J ' ^

* ^ f * Ytl^-7^-, , G U 

### art-v L CW . # /.O O /jour.. . ^

^'0 0 co^,„ , l-

„

- J ' C h /v. - S S . # /O O - ^(i O /A-e , VAJ/(^C

_<j r i . d j 5 r * C 

# P . 6 f _io-* S \«. J y< ^ I M J 

### . .GO-7*5 0 A SK



# ' a — <S"

CT'' 1 - - ___ ' I ' . ACTIO N Distribution :
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certification**

 

I, Gary C. Loraditch, President of BCSB Bancorp, Inc., certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of BCSBBancorp, Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements,and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofthe registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the 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 who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: December 28, 2004
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BARBARA K. PARMENTER, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND 

SOCIETY, FSB, Not in its individual 

capacity but as trustee for BCAT 2017-19TT 

and BCAT 201719TT; SHELLPOINT 

MORTGAGE SERVICING, 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 20-35696 

D.C. No. 6:20-cv-00792-MK 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Michael J. McShane, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 18, 2021**

Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

Barbara K. Parmenter appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment 

dismissing her action alleging federal and state law claims and seeking to prevent 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

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

FILED

MAY 25 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 20-35696 

foreclosure on property in Oregon. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 

We affirm. 

In her opening brief, Parmenter failed to address any of the grounds for 

dismissal and has therefore waived her challenge to the district court’s order

dismissing her action for failure to prosecute. See Indep. Towers of Wash. v. 

Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[W]e will not consider any claims 

that were not actually argued in appellant’s opening brief.”); Acosta-Huerta v. 

Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir. 1993) (issues not supported by argument in pro se 

appellant’s opening brief are waived); see also Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 

977 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We will not manufacture arguments for an appellant, and a 

bare assertion does not preserve a claim . . . .”).

We do not consider Parmenter’s renewed request for appointment of counsel 

set forth in her opening brief. In Docket Entry No. 18, this court denied 

Parmenter’s motion for appointment of counsel and ordered that no motions for 

reconsideration, clarification, or modification of the denial shall be filed or 

entertained.

All other pending motions and requests are denied. 

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 10(d)(2)










EXHIBIT 10(d)(2)


 






	
   

  	
  Cycle 13 (2003-2005) LTIP Payouts

  
	
  Name and Principal Position

  	
  Target

  Shares

  	
  Opportunity

  Shares

  
	

   	

  	

  
	
  Michael H. Madison - President and Chief Executive Officer

  	
  3,000

  	
  1,275

  
	
  Dilek Samil - President and Chief Operating Officer (Cleco Power LLC)

  	
  7,824

  	
  3,326

  
	
  Kathleen F. Nolen - Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

  	
  3,651

  	
  1,552

  
	
  R. O'Neal Chadwick, Jr. - Senior Vice President and General Counsel

  	
  5,286

  	
  2,247

  
	
  Samuel H. Charlton III - Senior Vice President and Chief Operating
  Officer (Cleco Midstream Resources LLC)

  	
  6,064

  	
  2,578
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Stephen K. Gartside, Jr.,certify that:

 

1.               I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/Aof Evolving Systems, Inc.;

 

2.               Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.               Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand 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 and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e))for the registrant and have:

 

(a)          Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b)         Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and

 

(c)          Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and

 

5.               The registrant’s other certifying officer(s)and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committeeof the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

(a)          All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and

 

(b)         Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.

 
| Date: August 23, 2005            |
|---------------------------------------|
|                                  |
| /s/ Stephen K. Gartside, Jr.     |   |
| Stephen K. Gartside, Jr.         |
| President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
exv10w2



 






Exhibit 10.2




RESIGNATION 




Board of Directors

TEKNIK DIGITAL ARTS, INC.

7518 Elbow Bend Road, Suite B-9

Carefree, Arizona 85377




Dear Board Members:



As a result of my inability to obtain the information and documentation necessary for me to
perform my obligations as a member of the Board of Directors, effective as of the date set
forth below, I hereby resign as a member of the Board of Directors of TEKNIK DIGITAL ARTS,
INC.




Dated: February 27, 2006




Corey Comstock

Signature: /s/ Corey Comstock