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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUL-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 AUG-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUL-31-1999
<CASH>                                         657,791
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  2,996,820
<ALLOWANCES>                                   67,946
<INVENTORY>                                    8,569,580
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               13,392,018
<PP&E>                                         3,708,156
<DEPRECIATION>                                 597,936
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 16,575,370
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          6,399,485
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       37,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     8,835,803
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   16,575,370
<SALES>                                        25,299,806
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               25,299,806
<CGS>                                          19,218,718
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  7,585,290
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               7,821
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (153,832)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,582,597)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (319,700)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,262,897)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,262,897)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (0.34)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.34)



</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6503

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DESHAWN EDWARD DERR,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (1:11-cr-00517-JCC-1; 1:16-cv00663-JCC)

Submitted: August 12, 2019 Decided: August 19, 2019

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, THACKER, Circuit Judge, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Deshawn Edward Derr, Appellant Pro Se. Daniel Taylor Young, Assistant United States 

Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Deshawn Edward Derr seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on 

his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is 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 Derr has not made 

the requisite showing. In his § 2255 motion, Derr claimed his 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2012) 

conviction was obtained in violation of Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). 

The predicate offense for his § 924(c) conviction was Hobbs Act robbery committed on or 

about June 17, 2011. In light of United States v. Mathis, No. 16-4633, __ F.3d __, 2019 

WL 3437626, at *16 (4th Cir. July 31, 2019) (holding that “Hobbs Act robbery constitutes 

a crime of violence under the force clause of Section 924(c)”), we conclude that Derr fails 

to show his § 2255 motion states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, deny the motion to appoint counsel, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with 
3

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
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-60240

Conference Calendar

 

EDWARD CHARLES STATEUM,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, The State

of Mississippi; THE SCHOOL DEPARTMENT

IN LAMBERT, MISS. 38643; JOB CORPS 

DEPARTMENT IN GULFPORT, MISS. 39501;

COAHOMA COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT;

SOCIAL SECURITY DISABILITY SERVICE

DISTRICT OFFICE,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 2:95CV145-B-B

- - - - - - - - - -

June 26, 1996

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Edward Charles Stateum appeals from the district court’s

dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action as frivolous under 28

U.S.C. § 1915(d). Stateum’s appeal is without factual or legal

basis and is thus frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215,
No. 96-60240

- 2 -

219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, his appeal is DISMISSED AS

FRIVOLOUS. 5th Cir. R. 42.2. 

We caution Stateum that any additional frivolous appeals

filed by him or on his behalf will invite the imposition of

sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Stateum is cautioned further to

review any pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise

arguments that are frivolous because they have been previously

decided by this court. 

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**PC MALL, INC.**

 

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

**(AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of PC Mall, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q forthe fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Brandon H. LaVerne, ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solelyfor purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United StatesCode, that to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1)         the Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

 

(2)         the information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periodsindicated.

 

This Certification has notbeen, and shall not be deemed, “filed” with the Securities and ExchangeCommission.

 
| November 9, 2010   |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
|                    |   |
| /s/ Brandon H. LaVerne  |   |
| Brandon H. LaVerne      |   |
| Chief Financial Officer |   |

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         343,685
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          43,429
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               100,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    983,814
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                      2,086,654
<ALLOWANCE>                                     19,212
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,872,399
<DEPOSITS>                                   3,164,961
<SHORT-TERM>                                   136,039
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            258,679
<LONG-TERM>                                     67,773
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        19,947
<OTHER-SE>                                     225,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               3,872,399
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 38,052
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               15,535
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 2,051
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                55,638
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              27,259
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              30,799
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           24,839
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      150
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   1
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 87,545
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 26,037
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      15,882
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    15,882
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.85<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.76<F1>
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.18
<LOANS-NON>                                      7,616
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                19,037
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       18
<RECOVERIES>                                        43
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               19,212
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            19,212
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                         19,212
<FN>
<F1>Represents the Corporation's basic and diluted income per share calculated in
accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 128 "Earnings
Per Share".
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-10106 Conference Calendar

TOMMY GABRIEL, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus L.E. FLEMING, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:03-CV-937-Y

-------------------- Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Tommy Gabriel, federal prisoner # 08531-078, appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in which he alleged that the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) had erroneously calculated his initial custody classification. Gabriel relies on Sellers v. Bureau of Prisons , 959 F.2d 307 (D.C. Cir. 1992), in support of his argument that, when calculating his initial custody classification, the BOP incorrectly classified his “failure to appear” for community supervision on a prior United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## F I L E D August 17, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 04-10106 -2- conviction as “absconding” or an “escape” from community supervision. Gabriel argues that, due to the classification error, he was ineligible for placement in less restrictive custody. In the context of a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, the district court’s determinations of law are reviewed de novo and its findings of fact are reviewed for clear error. See Royal v. Tombone , 141 F.3d 596, 599 (5th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted). As a general rule, inmates have no protected liberty interest in initial custodial classification. See Wilkerson v. Stalder , 329 F.3d 431, 435-36 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 124 S. Ct. 432 (2003). Absent an abuse of discretion by prison officials, the custodial classification will be upheld. Id. at 436. Gabriel’s reliance on Sellers is misplaced because the record in Gabriel’s case contains administrative records from the BOP informing him that his classification status was consistent with the prison classification manual. Cf. Sellers , 959 F.2d at 312 (absence of administrative records for verification purposes). The classification manual used by the BOP includes the concepts of “failure to appear” and “absconding” from community supervision within the broad definition of “escape.” Gabriel has failed to show that the BOP abused its discretion in assigning his initial custodial classification. See Wilkerson , 329 F.3d at 436. Accordingly, because Gabriel has no constitutional right in his initial custodial classification andNo. 04-10106 -3- because the record reflects that the BOP did not abuse its discretion in assigning his initial classification, the district court did not err in denying Gabriel’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition.
See Royal , 141 F.3d at 599. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
##### 



Exhibit 12
 ADVANTA CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES
COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
 Three Months Ended
    
    
    Six Months Ended($ in thousands)
    
    June 30,
    
    
    June 30,2007
    
    
    2006
    
    
    2007
    
    
    2006Income from continuing operations
    
    $
    22,712
    
    
    $
    23,040
    
    
    $
    44,160
    
    
    $
    44,950Income tax expense
    
    
    13,933
    
    
    
    14,423
    
    
    
    27,761
    
    
    
    28,139Earnings before income taxes
    
    
    36,645
    
    
    
    37,463
    
    
    
    71,921
    
    
    
    73,089Fixed charges:Interest on debt, deposits and other
borrowings
    
    
    21,316
    
    
    
    15,189
    
    
    
    41,561
    
    
    
    28,855Interest on subordinated debt payable
to preferred securities trust
    
    
    2,317
    
    
    
    2,290
    
    
    
    4,634
    
    
    
    4,579One-third of all rentals
    
    
    457
    
    
    
    457
    
    
    
    931
    
    
    
    904Total fixed charges
    
    
    24,090
    
    
    
    17,936
    
    
    
    47,126
    
    
    
    34,338Earnings before income taxes and fixed charges
    
    $
    60,735
    
    
    $
    55,399
    
    
    $
    119,047
    
    
    $
    107,427Ratio of earnings to fixed charges (1)
    
    
    2.52
    x
    
    
    3.09
    x
    
    
    2.53
    x
    
    
    3.13
    x
 (1)
    
    For purposes of computing these ratios, earnings represent income before income
taxes plus fixed charges. Fixed charges consist of interest expense and one-third
(the portion deemed representative of the interest factor) of rental expense on
operating leases. Fixed charges do not include interest expense related to
unrecognized tax benefits, which we classify as income tax expense.
<TABLE>
                      LIBERTY FINANCIAL COMPANIES, INC.

         EXHIBIT 11 - Statement re Computation of Per Share Earnings
               (in millions, except share and per share amounts)

<CAPTION>
                                   Three Months Ended      Nine Months Ended
                                      September 30            September 30
                                ----------------------- -----------------------
                                    1997       1996         1997       1996
                                ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
<S>                                  <C>         <C>         <C>        <C>
Primary net income per common
  share:
 
 Net income                          $32.9       $24.7       $97.9       $71.6
 Less: cumulative preferred          
        dividends                      0.2         0.2         0.7         0.7
                                ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
 Net income available for        
  common shareholders                $32.7       $24.5       $97.2       $70.9
                                =========== =========== =========== ===========

 Weighted average shares 
  outstanding                   29,395,824  28,416,294  29,071,280  28,120,214
 Common stock equivalents        1,624,087   1,291,825   1,606,815   1,407,138
                                ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
             Total              31,019,911  29,708,119  30,678,095  29,527,352
                                =========== =========== =========== ===========
Primary net income per common    
 share                               $1.05       $0.82       $3.17       $2.40
                                =========== =========== =========== ===========
Fully diluted net income per
 common share:

 Net income                          $32.9       $24.7       $97.9       $71.6
                                =========== =========== =========== ===========

 Weighted average shares
  outstanding                   29,395,824  28,416,294  29,071,280  28,120,214
 Common stock equivalents        1,647,629   1,291,825   1,785,688   1,407,138
 Convertible preferred stock       345,286     346,045     345,420     346,056
                                ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
               Total            31,388,739  30,054,164  31,202,388  29,873,408
                                =========== =========== =========== ===========


Fully diluted net income per     
 common share                        $1.05       $0.82       $3.14       $2.40
                                =========== =========== =========== ===========

</TABLE>
#### EQUITY MUT. INS. CO. v. FISHER.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

March 27, 1953.

*505Kenneth H. Tuggle, Barbourville, for appellant.

J. J. Tye, Barbourville, for appellee.

CAMMACK, Justice.

Eugene Roark obtained an insurance policy from the Equity Mutual Insurance Company to cover an automobile which he intended to use as a taxicab. When he applied for his insurance and made a down payment thereon he also sent a cashier’s check to the Division of Motor Transportation at Frankfort for a taxi permit. In due time he received his insurance policy. However, he was never issued a taxicab permit. While the. insurance policy was still in force, Roark’s car collided with another one and caused damages to the property of Chris E. Fisher. Subsequently, Roark was notified that his insurance was cancelled and that the Company denied liability on the ground that he did not hold a taxicab permit at the time of the accident. Roark was notified further that the Insurance Company would proceed with the defense of the suits growing out of the accident, but would do so without prejudice to its right to assert any defenses under the policy.

It is the contention of the Insurance Company that the policy was never in effect, because Roark’s obtention of a taxicab permit was a condition precedent to the imposition of liability on it. Certain provisions of the policy standing alone tend to support the position of the Insurance Company. Reliance is placed also upon the case of Commercial Standard Insurance Company v. Robertson, 6 Cir., 159 F.2d 405, wherein the court upheld the position of the Insurance Company insofar as the case at hand is concerned.

Fisher relies upon the case of Travelers Mutual Casualty Company of Des Moines, Iowa v. Thomsbury, 276 Ky. 762, 125 S.W.2d 229. The insurance policy in that case contained provisions similar to the ones in the case at bar. The Company was held liable, even though the accident in which Thornsbury was injured by the taxicab occurred while the cab was being used for private purposes. Insofar as the limitation provision of the policy was concerned, the court said that no limitation contained in the policy should affect the rights of any person injured, or relieve the Company of the payment to such person' of any judgment for damages growing out of the accident. We think that case is controlling here.

Judgment affirmed.
**Exhibit 99.1**

CERTIFICATION

 

I, Michael J. Post, President & CEO,certify that:

 

                1.I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Gasel TransportationLines, Inc.;

 

                2.Based upon my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterlyreport;

 

                3.Based upon my knowledge, the financial statements and other financialinformation included in this quarterly report fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

 

                4.The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

 

a) Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisquarterly report is being prepared;

 

b) Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures as of adate within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the“Evaluation Date”); and

 

c) Presented in this quarterlyreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

 

                5.The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofthe registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

a) All significantdeficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which couldadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial data and have identified for the registrant’s auditors anymaterial weaknesses in internal controls; and

 

b) Any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal controls; and

 

                6.The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have indicated in thisquarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internalcontrols or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controlssubsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any correctiveactions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

 
| Dated:  November 27, 2002 | by: /s/ Michael J. Post |
|--------------------------------|-------------------------|
|                           | Michael J. Post,        |
|                           | President & CEO     |

 

 

 

----