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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                          16,454
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               130,108
<PP&E>                                         109,880
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,628
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 249,459
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,889
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                         2,260
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     236,310
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   249,459
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               261,032
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (261,032)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (261,032)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.06)
        

</TABLE>
Ninth Amendment to the Premcor Retirement Savings Plan dated August 12, 2004.



 Exhibit 10.2 
  
 NINTH AMENDMENT TO THE 
 PREMCOR RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLAN 
  
 WHEREAS, The Premcor
Refining Group Inc. (“Company”) previously adopted the Premcor Retirement Savings Plan (“Plan”); and 
  
 WHEREAS, the Company reserved the right to amend the Plan pursuant to Section 16.1 thereof; and 
  
 WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan to clarify the definition of
Compensation; 
  
 NOW, THEREFORE, effective January 29, 2004,
Section 2.5 of the Plan is amended by deleting the first paragraph thereof and replacing it with the following: 
  
 “Compensation” means the gross amount received during the Plan Year by an Employee for services rendered with respect to the Employer, including
salary, commissions, wages, overtime pay and amounts contributed through a Qualified Plan which meets the requirements of Section 401(k) of the Code, to a cafeteria plan which meets the requirements of Section 125 of the Code or elective amounts not
included in the gross income of the Employee by reason of Section 132(f)(4), but shall not include bonuses, incentive pay, reimbursements or other expense allowances, fringe benefits, moving expenses, deferred compensation, welfare benefits,
earnings with respect to equity-based compensation, payments on termination of employment for accrued and unused vacation days, Employer contributions under Section 4 of this Plan or benefits under any other Qualified Plan. 
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has executed this amendment as of this 12 day
of August, 2004.  
  

			
	 THE PREMCOR REFINING GROUP INC.

		
	By	 	/s/    JAMES R. VOSS        
	 	 	 James R. Voss, Senior Vice President
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000075448
<NAME> NSTORE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1996<F1>
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1996
<CASH>                                          10,608
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,747
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,385
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                13,822
<PP&E>                                           1,360
<DEPRECIATION>                                      68
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  15,677
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,777
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           934
<OTHER-SE>                                      11,456
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    15,677
<SALES>                                          5,619
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                17,808<F2>
<CGS>                                            3,547
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,504
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  72
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 12,232
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    566
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    12,798
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .73
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Registrant recently changed its fiscal year end to December 31
(reference Form 8-K filed November 15, 1996).
<F2>Total revenues includes the gain from the sale of IMNET Systems, Inc.
stock for $11,955.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-4982

_____________________________

TRAVIS DAVIS-ROWLAND,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County.

Phillip A. Pena, Judge.

June 5, 2018

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, JAY, and WINSOR, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

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

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant 

Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-3100

CURTIS HOLT, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MOHAMMED KALIMI, in his official and individual capacity; JAMES POLAND, in his official

and individual capacity; LINDA COREY, in her

official and individual capacity; MARGARET

BIBER, in her official and individual capacity; WILLIAM DEWEY, in his official capacity,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge.

(CA-95-355)

Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: May 28, 1996

Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Curtis Holt, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. David Lee Ross, Jean Freeman

Reed, VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and

dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Holt v.

Kalimi, No. CA-95-355 (E.D. Va. Nov. 6, 1995). 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
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-2459

ALEMAYEHU BACHORE ASFAW, Petitioner,
versus JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A75-363-148) Submitted: June 30, 2003 Decided: July 25, 2003 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry L. Lewis, LAW OFFICE OF J.W. NESARI, L.L.C., Herndon, Virginia, for Petitioner. Robert D. McCallum, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Margaret Perry, Senior Litigation Counsel, Audrey B. Hemesath, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Alemayehu B. Asfaw, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have reviewed the record provided by the parties and the decision of the Board. Asfaw challenges the negative credibility findings made by the immigration judge and affirmed by the Board. We have reviewed the immigration judge’s credibility determination and find it to be supported by specific, cogent reasoning and therefore entitled to substantial deference. Figeroa v. INS , 886 F.2d 76, 78 (4th Cir. 1989). We hold that the Board’s conclusion that Asfaw failed to establish eligibility for asylum is not manifestly contrary to the law or an abuse of discretion. 8 U.S.C. § 1254(b)(4)(D) (2000). The standard for receiving withholding of removal is “more stringent than that for asylum eligibility.” Chen v. INS , 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir. 1999). An applicant for withholding mustdemonstrate a clear probability of persecution. INS v. CardozaFonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430 (1987). As Asfaw failed to establish entitlement to asylum, he cannot satisfy the higher standard for withholding of removal. We accordingly deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal arguments are adequately3 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
#### DARWIN v. STATE.

No. 18285.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 13, 1936.

Rehearing Denied June 17, 1936.

H. S. Beard, of Waco, for appellant.

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

HAWICINS, Judge.

Conviction is for robbery, punishment being five years in the penitentiary.

On the night of August 22, 1935, A. W. Thompson and a' friend went to a roadhouse near Waco some time after 12 o’clock. Thompson had been drinking and continued to drink after his arrival at the roadhouse. Pie exhibited his money, about $160. When the house closed for the night, Thompson started towards his car. Pie testified that appellant then struck him several times and took his money. Another state’s witness testified that Thompson started a fight with appellant and that it was during such fight appellant took the money from Thompson and handed it to a girl who was present.

No bills of exception are brought forward. The evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s finding that appellant assaulted and robbed Thompson. Bryant v. State, 122 Tex.Cr.R. 385, 55 S.W. (2d) 1037.

The judgment is affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

KRUEGER, Judge.

In his motion for rehearing appellant renews his contention that the evidence is insufficient to justify his conviction. A careful review of the record has failed to convince us that we were in error in holding in our original opinion that the evidence was sufficient. Hence the motion for rehearing is overruled.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.
#### GRAND UNITED ORDER OF ODD FELLOWS v. JONES et al.

No. 8097.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Austin.

July 24, 1935.

*663Atkins & Wesley, of Houston, for appellant.

J. B. Dibrell, Jr., of Coleman, for ap-pellee.

BLAIR, Justice.

Appellees, Lonnie Jones, husband of Lula Jones, deceased, and Bertha Lee Clay, daughter of deceased, as beneficiaries, sued appellant to recover on its contract of insurance covering the life of Lula Jones, for $500 and $75 additional as burial expenses. Recovery of the 12 per cent, statutory penalty and attorney’s .fees was also sought. The defense was that Lula Jones misrepresented her age as under forty-five years at the time the certificate of insurance was issued; it being alleged that the constitution and by-laws of appellant provided that no woman over forty-five years of age could be insured.

The jury found that Lula Jones was forty-seven years of age at the time the certificate was issued to her. She gave her age as forty-two years. The jury found that $25 was a reasonable attorney’s fee. On motion of appellees, judgment was rendered for them in the sum of $697.75, with 6 per cent, interest from date. Judgment was rendered for appellees because appellant failed to prove that its constitution and by-laws in force at the time the certificate in suit was issued restricted membership to females not less than sixteen and not over forty-five years of age. We sustain this conclusion of the trial court.

Appellant offered, but the trial court excluded, its purported constitution and bylaws and amendments thereto, dated August 15, 1931. The certificate of insurance sued upon was issued in 1926. The provision restricting membership to females from sixteen to forty-five years of age was not shown to have been in effect in 1926 when the certificate was issued.

Nor were the constitution and by-laws and the amendments thereto offered in evidence properly certified to, to make them admissible as evidence as required by article 4848, R. S. 1925. Those offered were printed, and the names of all officers were printed. The purported certificate of the state commissioner of insurance was not signed nor sealed by the commissioner. Nor were the purported constitution and by-laws sealed with the appellant’s seal.

Since appellant offered no evidence showing that the age clause was in effect in 1926, when the certificate was issued, the error, if any, in excluding certain evidence relating to the age of deceased wa's immaterial. The other propositions presented have no merit, and are not sustained.

The judgment of the trial court will be ■ affirmed.

Affirmed.
**EXHIBIT23.1**

**P&F INDUSTRIES, INC.**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTINGFIRM**

We have issued our reportdated March 24, 2006 accompanying the consolidated financial statementsand schedule included in the Annual Report of P&F Industries, Inc. andSubsidiaries on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005.We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said report in theRegistration Statements on Form S-8 of P&F Industries, Inc.and Subsidiaries, effective February 18, 1997 and June 14, 2002.
| /s/ GRANT  THORNTON LLP |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| Melville, New York      |   |
| March 30, 2006     |   |

 

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1526

WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR., on behalf of and as next friend 

of J.F.D., a minor,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

and

J.F.D., a minor,

Plaintiff,

v.

MELANIE A. SHEKITA, Individually and as a Wake County NC 

Assistant District Attorney for the State of North Carolina; 

MICHELLE SAVAGE, individually and as a Police Detective for 

the Cary North Carolina Police Department; DANIELLE DOYLE, 

individually and as a Wake County North Carolina Department 

of Health and Human Services Child Protective Services 

Social Worker; ERIC CRAIG CHASSE, individually and as a Wake 

County North Carolina Family Court Judge; MIKE EASLEY, 

individually and as Governor of the State of North Carolina; 

BEVERLY PERDUE, individually and as Governor of the State of 

North Carolina,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, 

Senior District Judge. (5:12-cv-00504-H)

Submitted: July 28, 2016 Decided: August 1, 2016
2

Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Scott Davis, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

William Scott Davis, Jr., appeals the district court’s 

order denying eight motions in a closed civil rights action. We 

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. Davis v. Shekita, No. 5:12−cv−00504−H (E.D.N.C. Apr. 5, 

2016). 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.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FORM
10-QSB AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001013274
<NAME> IBW FINANCIAL CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          12,374
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             448
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                19,200
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    120,556
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        110,687
<ALLOWANCE>                                      2,930
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 270,159
<DEPOSITS>                                     219,856
<SHORT-TERM>                                    28,616
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              1,379
<LONG-TERM>                                      1,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        500
<COMMON>                                           668
<OTHER-SE>                                      18,140
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 270,159
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  7,916
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                4,648
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   846
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                13,410
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               4,050
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,864
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            8,564
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    2,419
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 201
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  9,322
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (498)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       (295)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (295)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.44)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.44)
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.82
<LOANS-NON>                                      5,390
<LOANS-PAST>                                       874
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  8,108
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,702
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    1,300
<RECOVERIES>                                       109
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                2,930
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             2,930
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              3
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                 EXHIBIT 11

                  ORION CAPITAL CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
                   COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE

                (000s omitted-except for per common share data)

                                                  Year Ended December 31,
                                                ---------------------------  
                                                  1995      1994      1993
                                                  ----      ----      ----
<S>                                             <C>       <C>       <C>
Computation of weighted average
  number of common and equivalent 
  shares outstanding:

PRIMARY -
  Weighted average number of shares
    outstanding .............................    14,055    14,249    14,461
  Dilutive effect of stock options ..........       132        99       137
                                                -------   -------   -------
  Weighted average number of common and
    equivalent shares .......................    14,187    14,348    14,598
                                                =======   =======   =======

  Net earnings before preferred dividend 
    requirements ............................   $67,622   $55,245   $68,813
  Preferred dividends .......................         -         -       409
                                                -------   -------   -------
  Net earnings attributable to common 
    stockholders ............................   $67,622   $55,245   $68,404
                                                =======   =======   =======

  Net earnings per common share .............   $  4.77   $  3.85   $  4.69
                                                =======   =======   =======

FULLY DILUTED -
  Weighted average number of shares
    outstanding .............................    14,055    14,249    14,461
  Dilutive effect of stock options ..........       139       118       137
  Conversion of $2.125 Preferred Stock ......         -         -        57
                                                -------   -------   -------
  Weighted average number of common and
    equivalent shares .......................    14,194    14,367    14,655
                                                =======   =======   =======

  Net earnings before preferred dividend 
    requirements ............................   $67,622   $55,245   $68,813
  Adjustable rate preferred stock dividends..         -         -       407
                                                -------   -------   -------
  Net earnings attributable to common 
    stockholders ............................   $67,622   $55,245   $68,406
                                                =======   =======   =======

  Net earnings per common share .............   $  4.76   $  3.85   $  4.67
                                                =======   =======   =======

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 23.1****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS**     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the RegistrationStatements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-111118 and 333-121172) andin the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-31638,333-38317, 333-90026, 333-116520) of our reports datedMarch 11, 2005 with respect to the consolidated financialstatements of Mercer International Inc. and management’sreport on the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K ofMercer International Inc. for the year ended December 31,2004./s/ Deloitte & ToucheLLPMarch 14, 2005Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
123