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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997             SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                     183,189,000             183,189,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                               16,379,000              16,379,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           210,257,000             210,257,000
<PP&E>                                   1,789,331,000           1,789,331,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              71,927,000              71,927,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           1,964,889,000           1,964,889,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       40,368,000              40,368,000
<BONDS>                                    649,188,000             649,188,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                288,875,000             288,875,000
<COMMON>                                             0                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                 986,458,000             986,458,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             1,964,889,000           1,964,889,000
<SALES>                                     61,768,000             177,246,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            63,302,000             181,951,000
<CGS>                                       17,407,000              48,995,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               28,490,000              79,910,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,410,000               6,694,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          11,133,000              34,771,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0                       0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         21,269,000              60,576,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              1,561,000               5,534,000
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                16,838,000              48,070,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .39                    1.14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .39                    1.14
        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

JASPER P. RICHARDSON

, 1

Petitioner Below, Appellant,

v.

DAWN DAVIS

- REED

,

Respondent Below

, Appellee. § § No. 259 , 202 2 § § Court Below

— Family Court § of the State of Delaware § § File No. C N 08

- 02364 § Pet ition No. 2 1

- 21545 § § §

Submitted: March 10 , 202 3

Decided: May 3 , 202 3

Before SEITZ , Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR

, Justices

.

ORDER

After careful consideration of the opening brief and the record on appeal , we

conclude that the judgment below should be affirmed on the basis o f the Family

Court’s order dated June 29, 2022

. On September 15, 2021, t he appellant (“Father”)

filed a petition in the Famil y Court seeking modification of the parties’ children’s

primary residential placement, which had been determined in November 2019 after

a full hearing on the merits. After a hearing on Father’s petition and a child

interview , t he Family Court determined t hat Father had not established that

“continuing enforcement of the prior order may endanger the [children’s] physical

1 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 7(d).2

health or significantly impair [their] emotional development,” as required for

modification of an order entered less than two years before the filing of a petition

for modification. 2 Among other things, t he court found that Father’s testimony

lacked credibility; that the appellee had provided appropriate care and nurture to the

children; and that the appellee had “done nothing that would c ause the Court

concerns for the safety and well

- being” of the children. The Family Court

appropriately applied 13 Del. C. § 729(c)( 1 )

. 3 A trial court’s f actual findings will

not be disturbed on appeal unless they are clearly erroneous, and when the

determination of facts turns on a question of the credibility of the witnesses

appearing before the trial court, we will not substitute our opinion for that of the trier

of fact. 4 To the extent that Father asserts that the Family Court erred in its Novem ber

2019 order, those claims are not properly asserted in this appeal from the Family

Court’s June 2022 order

.

2 See 13 Del. C. § 729(c)(1) (“An order entered by the Court after a full hearing on the merits concerning the legal custody of a child or his or her primary resi dence may be modified only as follows: (1) If the application for modification is filed within 2 years after the Court’s most recent order concerning these matters, the Court shall not modify its prior order unless it finds, after a hearing, that cont inui ng enforcement of the prior order may endanger the child’s physical health or significantly impair his or her emotional development.”)

. 3 See Green v. Green , 2011 WL 1467757 (Del. Apr. 18, 2011) (affirming Family Court’s denial of custody modification unde r 13 Del. C. § 729(c)(1))

. 4 Shimel v. Shimel , 2019 WL 2142066, at *2 (Del. May 14, 2019).3

N OW, TH EREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Family

Court is AFFIRMED

.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Gary F. Traynor

Justice
|                                                                                      
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                      
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                        
|View History: Annual                                                                  
|View History: Annual                                                                  
|View History:                                                                         
|                                                                                      
|U.S. Refinery Other Products Shell Storage Capacity as of January 1 (Thousand Barrels)
|                                                                                      
|                                                                                      
|U.S. Refinery Other Products Shell Storage Capacity as of January 1 (Thousand Barrels)
|                                                                                      

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0  | Year-1  | Year-2  | Year-3  | Year-4  | Year-5  | Year-6  | Year-7  | Year-8  | Year-9 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | -------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |         |         | 120,294 | 188,971 | 201,126 | 194,068 | 206,602 | 203,550 | 224,114 | 234,578
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 239,115 | 254,050 | 252,242 | 248,407 | 230,874 | 228,735 | NA      | 239,392 | NA      | 233,004
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 217,059 | 216,377 | 212,858 | 209,300 | 204,773 | 212,160 | 219,589 | 213,019 | 209,145 | 211,723
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 204,040 | --      | --      | --      | --      | --      | --      | --      | --      | --     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | --      | --      | --      | --      | --      |         |         |         |         |        
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 6/14/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: June 2025
IV

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 246

Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding the denial or limitation

of health insurance coverage or benefits on the basis of preexisting

medical conditions.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 5, 1994

Mr. WHEAT submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred

jointly to the Committees on Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding the denial

or limitation of health insurance coverage or benefits

on the basis of preexisting medical conditions.

Whereas the primary goal of health care reform is to ensure

quality health care for every American;

Whereas each month an estimated 2,000,000 Americans lose

their health insurance, and an estimated 58,000,000

Americans are without health insurance at some time

during each year;

Whereas the denial of health insurance coverage to, and limitation of coverage for, individuals with preexisting medical conditions, and their families, is a leading contributor

to the high incidence of lack of insurance and

underinsurance among Americans;
2

•HCON 246 IH

Whereas approximately 81,000,000 Americans under the age

of 65 have preexisting medical conditions;

Whereas Americans with preexisting medical conditions live

each day with the fear that, when they most need health

insurance, either health insurance coverage will be refused to them or their coverage or benefits will be limited

by the terms of their insurance policies or by the unwillingness of insurance providers to offer them full coverage

or benefits; and

Whereas individuals and families are often unable to leave inadequate insurance plans because a preexisting medical

condition limits their ability to obtain needed coverage

from other insurance providers: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that any

3 legislation enacted to provide for national health care re4 form should—

5 (1) prohibit the denial of health insurance cov6 erage to, or limitation of coverage or benefits for,

7 any individual or family on the basis of a preexisting

8 medical condition;

9 (2) prohibit charging any individual or family

10 an unreasonable amount for health insurance cov11 erage or benefits on the basis of a preexisting medi12 cal condition; and

13 (3) include among the individuals and families

14 protected by the prohibitions referred to in para15 graphs (1) and (2) any individuals and families that
3

•HCON 246 IH

1 wish to acquire health insurance coverage or benefits

2 from an entity other than their current provider of

3 coverage or benefits.

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §

§

v. § CASE NO.: 3:22-CR-222-X

§

HUGO VALDEZ-SEGUNDO (1) §

§

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

After reviewing all relevant matters of record, including the Notice Regarding Entry of a Plea of Guilty, 

the Consent of the defendant, and the Report and Recommendation Concerning Plea of Guilty of the United 

States Magistrate Judge, and no objections thereto having been filed within fourteen days of service in 

accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the undersigned District Judge is of the opinion that the Report and 

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge concerning the Plea of Guilty is correct, and it is hereby accepted by 

the Court. Accordingly, the Court accepts the plea of guilty, and HUGO VALDEZ-SEGUNDO (1) is hereby 

adjudged guilty of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) – Illegal Reentry After Removal from the United States. Sentence will 

be imposed in accordance with the Court's scheduling order.

 The defendant is ordered to remain in custody.

☐ The Court adopts the findings of the United States Magistrate Judge by clear and convincing evidence 

that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community if 

released and should therefore be released under § 3142(b) or (c).

☐ Upon motion, this matter shall be set for hearing before the United States Magistrate Judge who set 

the conditions of release for determination, by clear and convincing evidence, of whether the 

defendant is likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community if released under § 

3142(b) or (c).

☐ The defendant is not ordered detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(2) pending determination of 

whether it has been clearly shown that there are exceptional circumstances under § 3145(c) why the 

defendant should not be detained under § 3143(a)(2), and whether it has been shown by clear and 

convincing evidence that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the 

community if released under § 3142(b) or (c). This matter shall be referred to the United States 

Magistrate Judge who set the conditions of release.

Signed this 7th day of November, 2022.

________________________________

BRANTLEY STARR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:22-cr-00222-X Document 23 Filed 11/07/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 30
IA

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 12

To designate February 1993 as ‘‘National Black History Month’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 5, 1993

Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois introduced the following joint resolution; which was

referred to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

JOINT RESOLUTION

To designate February 1993 as ‘‘National Black History

Month’’.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That February 1993 is designated as ‘‘National Black

4 History Month’’, and the President of the United States

5 is authorized and requested to issue a proclamation calling

6 upon the people of the United States to observe such

7 month with appropriate ceremonies and activities.

Æ
No. PD-0112-15 § OUSMANE WANGARE, PETITIONER-MOVANT,

VS.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, RESPONDENT. § §

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 

### ANORIGINAL COPY ONLY OFr^jH PETITIONERY FORDISCRETIONARY^] COURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALS IN THE COURT OF

CRIMINAL APPEALS 

# of TEX21'.RT0FCR!WALAPPFALS APR 0 12015 

### Abel Acosta, Clerk

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES: TO THE HONORABLE CLERKS: 

### APR012015 AbelAcosta,Clerk COMES NOW, the above named petitioner-movant/ acting inhis own be 

### half, respectfulyrequesting the Court to allowhimto file onlyan original copyofhis [PDR] petition fordiscretionaryreview. IN THAT, [1] The style and appeal number in the Seventh District Court of Appeals at Amarillo, Texas, is No. 07-14-00176-CR; 

### [2] Pursuant to Rule 2, Tex.R.A.P., petitioner requests the Court to suspend Rule 9.3(b), Tex.R.A.P., that requires filing eleven (11) copies of the Petition for Discretionary Review with this Court; 

### [3] The facts relied upon show good cause for this request, i.ea. Petitioner-movant is indigent, incarcerated and does not have access to a photo copier; b. Petitioner-movant is not represented by counsel; and, c. Petitioner-movant believes his attached petition has merit and thus this request is made in good faith. WHEREFORE MOTION CONSIDERED, petitioner-movant requests the Court to suspend the rule and allow him to file only a single copy 

### of the [PDR] petition for Discretionary review. Thank you.

cc RESPECTFULLY REQUESTED, ( 

# JU^-^H OUSMANE WANGARE: PETITIONER-MOVANT

-1-CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

### I, Ousmane Wangare do hereby certifythat two copies of this motion 

### were placed in the Robertson Unit's mail box, along with asingle copy of his [PDR] petition for Discretionary Review for the Court's 

### filing. Iplaced said in the Unit's mail box on the 30thdayof March 2015. Iattest to this as true by affixing my singature below:

cc 

# # ({ i Ousmane Wangare: Petitioner Robertson Unit # 1920786 12071 FM 3522 Abilene, TX. 79601
Exhibit 35.1

SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2015-2 for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, (the Report), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Santander Consumer USA Inc. (the Servicer), does hereby certify and
represent that:



| | 1. | A review of the activities and performance of the Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as of April 22, 2015, among Santander Drive Auto Receivables LLC, Santander Consumer USA Inc., Santander
Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2015-2 and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association (the Agreement) during the period that is the subject of the Report has been made under my supervision.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the period that is the subject of the Report.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



SANTANDER CONSUMER USA INC.By:

/s/ Sandra M. BroderickName:

Sandra M. BroderickTitle:

EVP Head of OperationsDate:

March 30, 2018By:

/s/ Andrew KangName:

Andrew KangTitle:

Executive Vice President Capital Markets and TreasurerDate:

March 30, 2018
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7944

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ANTHONY BONNER, a/k/a Tone, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CR98-424-CCB, CA-02-2994-CCB) Submitted: March 20, 2003 Decided: March 27, 2003 Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Bonner, Appellant Pro Se. Christine Manuelian, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Anthony R. Bonner, a federal pri soner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 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 § 2255 motion solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the movant can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the [motion] 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 (2000)), cert. denied , 534 U.S. 941 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Bonner has not made the requisite showing. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , U.S. , 2003 WL 431659, at *10 (U.S. Feb. 25, 2003) (No. 01-7662). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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
**Exhibit 31.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Wayne G.Wetherell, certify that:

1.               I have reviewedthis quarterly report on Form 10-Q of ImageWare Systems, Inc.;

2.               Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.               Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.               The registrant’sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a)          designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

(b)         [Reserved]

(c)          evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

(d)         disclosed in this reportany change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

5.               The registrant’sother certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)          all significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

(b)         any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 
| Dated: | August 14, 2006 | /s/ Wayne G. Wetherell                       |
|--------|----------------------|----------------------------------------------|
|   |                 | Wayne G. Wetherell   Chief Financial Officer |

 

 

----