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

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       4,358,390
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                      99,382,081
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             3,500,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 11,355,004
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      15,184,352
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        15,133,701
<LOANS>                                     92,189,422
<ALLOWANCE>                                    825,966
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             130,324,129
<DEPOSITS>                                 117,717,627
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            495,085
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     5,711,274
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,400,143
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             130,324,129
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              2,004,289
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              368,766
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                93,700
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             2,466,755
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           1,106,398
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,106,398
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        1,360,357
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   75,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              1,008,115
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                387,520
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     387,520
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   231,493
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .17
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.26
<LOANS-NON>                                     43,456
<LOANS-PAST>                                    75,474
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               783,366
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   33,646
<RECOVERIES>                                     1,246
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              825,966
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           825,966
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
Cedar House

P.O. Box 163

Kake, Alaska 99380

Telephone 907-785-4177

Fax: 907-785-4902

Email:

May 27, 2014

Michael Martin

United States Department of Transportation

Essential Air Service (EAS) and Small Community Air Service Development Program

(SCASDP)

Sent via email to MichaeJ.F.Martin@dot.gov [mailto:Michael.F .Martin@dot.govJ

Dear Mr. Martin,

We are owners of a small business that has been in existence in Kake Alaska since 1983. We are

providing your office with our observations as a small business owner and our recommendation

for an air carrier for the Essential Air Service (EAS) contract for Kake, Alaska.

First of all, we would like to thank the US Department of Transportation for providing EAS

contracts for small communities such as Kake. If it wasn't for programs such as this, our cost of

shipping as well as air travel would be sky-high.

Our business, Cedar House, recommends Harris Air for the following reasons:

I. When the weather is marginal, Harris Air can be seen flying into Kake when the other

Juneau airlines stay on the ground. This has been going on for years, and we choose to

do any business travel with Harris Air because of this. During some winter months, even

the jets overhead Juneau. When we go on our buying and seIling trips, we prefer to fly

with someone who can get us in & out ofKake on the day we made reservations for

travel.

2. Harris Air has been flying IFR for years. We know that some of the other air carriers

have finally started flying IFR, however, it is something that they have promised Kake

for years. We see too many empty promises when it's time for the EAS contract.

3. Harris Air does UPS shipping. Often we ship out furs for tanning. Having the airlines do

UPS shipping is needed for small businesses.

Thank you for your attention to our letter.
# Materials Not Included in **Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket**

Docket Number: FAA- 2011 - 1170 Directorate Identifier: 2010NM264AD

A300 - 28 - 6103 --- 5/20/09

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket 

### MA **Y BE VIEWED AT:** Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate Rules Docket 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057 425.227.1221 **DURING THE HOURS OF:** 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Form Date: 03/05/2008
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Angel Sostre, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Rettinger, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered January 10, 1989, convicting defendant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and sentencing defendant, as a second felony offender, to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of from 4ló to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

The statements made by the prosecutor regarding the credibility of the undercover police officer did not constitute improper vouching and were, in any event, an appropriate response to comments made on summation by the defense, wherein the defense went so far as to suggest that the testimony of the undercover officer was "incredible” *(see, People v Moore,*157 AD2d 538, *lv denied*75 NY2d 968). Defendant’s objections to the introduction of, and comments upon, the witness’s out-of-court identification of defendant were not properly preserved for appellate review, nor were defendant’s remaining arguments respecting the prosecutor’s characterization of certain issues raised by the defense as "smoke screens”. Were we to reach these issues in the interest of justice, we would find that these comments did not exceed the broad bounds of rhetorical comment permissible during closing argument *(People v Galloway,*54 NY2d 396) and that the testimony regarding the witness’s out-of-court identification was properly admitted pursuant to CPL 60.25. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Carro, Milonas and Rubin, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE> 
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           1,377
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             378
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      7,728
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                             398
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                               398
<LOANS>                                         41,681
<ALLOWANCE>                                        313
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  53,961
<DEPOSITS>                                      40,159
<SHORT-TERM>                                     5,758
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                442
<LONG-TERM>                                        336
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             5
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,261
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  53,961
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                    830
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  120
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                   950
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                 470
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 560
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                              390
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       15
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                    339
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     74
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                          24
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        50
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .11
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.19
<LOANS-NON>                                         22
<LOANS-PAST>                                        77
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                    400
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   309
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       11
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  313
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               135
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            178
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 99.1


      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                   PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, J. Patrick Tinley,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant  to  Section  906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  that the Annual
Report of Ross  Systems,  Inc. on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended June 30,
2002 fully  complies  with the  requirements  of  Section  13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 and that  information  contained in such Annual
Report on Form 10-K/A  fairly  presents in all material  respects the  financial
condition and results of operations of Ross Systems, Inc.


                                                By:    /s/ J. Patrick Tinley
                                                       ------------------------
                                                Name:  J. Patrick Tinley
                                                Title: Chief Executive Officer


I, Verome M. Johnston,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant  to  Section  906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  that the Annual
Report of Ross  Systems,  Inc. on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended June 30,
2002 fully  complies  with the  requirements  of  Section  13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 and that  information  contained in such Annual
Report on Form 10-K/A  fairly  presents in all material  respects the  financial
condition and results of operations of Ross Systems, Inc.


                                                By:    /s/ Verome M. Johnston
                                                       -----------------------
                                                Name:  Verome M. Johnston
                                                Title: Chief Financial Officer
/*!
 * jQuery UI Scroll Parent 1.13.2
 * http://jqueryui.com
 *
 * Copyright jQuery Foundation and other contributors
 * Released under the MIT license.
 * http://jquery.org/license
 */
!function(t){"use strict";"function"==typeof define&&define.amd?define(["jquery","./version"],t):t(jQuery)}((function(t){"use strict";return t.fn.scrollParent=function(e){var s=this.css("position"),n="absolute"===s,o=e?/(auto|scroll|hidden)/:/(auto|scroll)/,i=this.parents().filter((function(){var e=t(this);return(!n||"static"!==e.css("position"))&&o.test(e.css("overflow")+e.css("overflow-y")+e.css("overflow-x"))})).eq(0);return"fixed"!==s&&i.length?i:t(this[0].ownerDocument||document)}}));
//# sourceMappingURL=scroll-parent-min.js.map
#### BEASLEY et ux. v. EQUITABLE SECURITIES CO. et al.

No. 3707.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. El Paso.

July 14, 1938.

D. D. Bird and Bird & Bird, all of Dallas, for appellants.

Brown & _ Hamlin, Cedric G. Hamlin, and W. M. Fouraker, all of Dallas, for appellees.

HIGGINS, Justice

(after stating the case as above).

In May, 1922, Jones, in writing, agreed to convey to defendants Lots One and Two, in said Block D, for the consideration of $1,050, of which amount $10 was paid in cash and the balance was to be paid in monthly installments of $16 each. It does not appear this instrument was filed for record. By deed dated June 16, 1933, recorded November 28, 1933, Jones conveyed said Lot Two to the defendants for $650 cash and their note for $400 secured by vendor’s lien on the lot. The payment of the note was further secured by a deed of trust of that date executed by the Beasleys. The note and liens were acquired by the Securities Company. Later the property was sold by the trustee under power conferred by the deed of trust and conveyed to the Securities Company.

According to the testimony of Louis Beasley, Jones, in 1931, solicited Beasley to release his claim to Lot One, in consideration of which Jones agreed to deed tq the Beasleys Lot Two. It seems *201to be the theory of appellants that their understanding was that Jones was to convey Lot Two to them unconditionally, but their evidence does not so show. As we construe the evidence it simply shows Jones agreed to give the Beasleys a deed to Lot Two, and this he did. But conceding it was agreed between Jones and the Beasleys that Jones was to convey the lot unconditionally to them free of in-cumbrance, and that he perpetrated a fraud in giving them a deed reserving a lien and deed of trust for unpaid purchase money amounting to $400, nevertheless the judgment should be affirmed because it appears the Securities Company acquired the notes and lien without notice, in good faith and for value. ' There is nothing to impeach the bona fides of the Securities Company in acquiring the same.

The cross action against Jones was barred by the two-year statute of limitation. Vernon’s Ann. Civ. St. art. 5526. Bass v. James, 83 Tex. 110, 18 S.W. 336. The fraud, if any, practiced by Jones was committed when he gave the deed of June 16, 1933, and appellants’ cross action was filed more than two years thereafter. There is nothing to toll the operation of the statute of limitation. It appears that shortly after the execution and delivery of the deed Beasley was advised of its contents and later filed the same for record on November 28, 1933. He admits that after receiving the deed he made several payments upon the note to the Securities Company.

Upon the record here presented the verdict was properly instructed and the judgment should be affirmed. It is so ordered.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND THE ACCOMPANYING TABLES
OF FORM 10-Q. INFORMATION HEREIN IS QUALIFIED BY REFERENCE TO SUCH STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                       2,343,111
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         164,439
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               323,800
<TRADING-ASSETS>                               285,928
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  3,239,303
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          25,808
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            24,580
<LOANS>                                     25,983,684
<ALLOWANCE>                                    483,206
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              33,616,363
<DEPOSITS>                                  25,906,727
<SHORT-TERM>                                 2,961,148
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            811,813
<LONG-TERM>                                    648,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,349,007
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,696,467
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              33,616,363
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                539,977
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               50,537
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 8,461
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               598,975
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             155,675
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             213,453
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          385,522
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   40,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             (4,318)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                256,038
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                241,494
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     241,494
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   158,471
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.97
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.96
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.20
<LOANS-NON>                                    144,400
<LOANS-PAST>                                    14,395
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               470,378
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   34,860
<RECOVERIES>                                     7,720
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              483,206
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           324,800
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                             19,500
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        138,900


</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CRAIG ROSS; NATALIE OPERSTEIN, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

 v. 

THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF 

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-56564 

D.C. No. 2:16-cv-03778-ODW-JC 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Otis D. Wright, II, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 22, 2018**

Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges. 

Craig Ross and Natalie Operstein appeal pro se from the district court’s 

order denying their motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Adams v. Cal. Dep’t of Health 

Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007), overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. 

 

* 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

OCT 29 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 17-56564 

Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 904 (2008). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellants’ motion 

to reopen because the instant action is duplicative of an earlier-filed action, Ross, et 

al. v. White, et. al., No. 2:17-cv-04149-ODW-JC. See Adams, 487 F.3d at 689 (in 

determining whether a later-filed action is duplicative, this court examines 

“whether the causes of action and relief sought, as well as the parties or privies to 

the action, are the same”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellants’ motion 

for reconsideration because appellants failed to establish any basis for such relief. 

See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 

(9th Cir. 1993) (standard of review and grounds for reconsideration under Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b)); see also C.D. Cal. R. 7-18 (grounds for reconsideration 

under local rules); Hinton v. Pac. Enters., 5 F.3d 391, 395 (9th Cir. 1993) (standard 

of review for compliance with local rules). 

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellants’ motions

to disqualify Judge Wright and Judge Ogluin. See United States v. Johnson, 610 

F.3d 1138, 1147-48 (9th Cir. 2010) (standard of review and standard for recusal). 

The district court did not err in denying appellants’ request to issue a 
3 17-56564 

summons. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(b) (requiring that a complaint be filed before a 

plaintiff may request a summons).

Appellants’ requests to disqualify Judge Wright, set forth in their reply 

briefs, are denied.

Appellants’ motion for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 17) is granted.

AFFIRMED.
#### CARTER v. STATE.

No. 15935.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 12, 1933.

J. W. Ellington, of Center, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson; State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Judge.

Conviction is for perjury; punishment being five years in the penitentiary.

The record is before this court without statement of facts or bills of exception. The indictment appears to be in proper form. In this condition of the record, nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
# **Exhibit 10.11**

 
| Aviron             |                               |
|--------------------|------------------------------------|
|               |                               |
|                    | RECEIVED  MAR 6 1996  A.C. DISANTE | 297 North  Bernardo Avenue  Mountain View,  California  94043 Tel:  415-919-6500  Fax:  415-919-6610 |
| March 4, 1996 |

 

AnneDiSante

SeniorTechnology Licensing Specialist

Universityof Michigan

303South State St.

WolverineTower, Room 2071

AnnArbor, MI 48109-1280

 

ByFax: 313-936-1330

Confirmation to follow by mail.

 

DearAnne:

 

Thankyou for your letter of February 28, 1996 notifying Aviron of thetermination of the license agreement between the University and Kaketsuken.

 

Asdescribed in the agreement between the University and Aviron, please considerthis written notice confirming Aviron’s desire to exercise its option to extendthe definition of the term “TERRITORY” to include Japan.

 
| Sincerely,             |   |
|------------------------|--------|
|                   |   |
| /s/ J. Leighton Read   |   |   |
| J. Leighton Read, M.D. |   |
| Chairman and CEO       |   |
|                        |        |  |

 

----