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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF DEC-31-1998 AND THE RELATED STATEMENTS OF
INCOME AND CASH FLOWS FOR THE 12-MONTH PERIOD THEN ENDED AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         868,463
<SECURITIES>                                 1,013,301
<RECEIVABLES>                                   80,746
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,246
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,027,767
<PP&E>                                       1,180,021
<DEPRECIATION>                                 174,134
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,597,108
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          249,217
<BONDS>                                      3,733,342
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          612,352
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,139,232
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,152,354)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,597,108
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               274,324
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  640,854
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             283,123
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (558,692)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (558,692)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (558,692)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (5.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (5.02)


</TABLE>
*Friday, July 30, 1999*

DISCIPLINARY DOCKET

97-2648.

#### Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Okocha.

IT IS ORDERED by this court, *sua sponte,*that Nwabueze Okocha, a.k.a. Nwabueze Vincent Okocha, Attorney Registration N'o. 0025024, last known address in Cleveland Heights, Ohio, is found in contempt for failure to comply with this court’s order of August 12, 1998, to wit: failure to surrender his Certificate of Admission and file an affidavit of compliance on or before September 11, 1998, and failure to pay board costs in the amount of $1,826.60 on or before November 10,1998.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

June 12, 2024

No. 04

- 23

- 00394

- CR

EX PARTE Ricardo TAPIA LOPEZ

From the County Court

, Kinney County, Texas

Trial Court No. 10797CR

Honorable Susan D. Reed , Judge Presiding

ORDER

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS Ricardo Tapia Lopez’s appeal of the denial of his application for pretrial writ of habeas corpus for want of jurisdiction. We further consider Tapia Lopez’s appeal as a petition for writ of m andamus and DENY his request for mandamus relief WITHOUT PREJUDICE

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(a).

It is so ORDERED on June 12, 2024

.

_____________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez

, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 12th day of June, 2024

.

_____________________________ Luz Estrada , Chief Deputy Clerk
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1401 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1401

To provide for the annual designation of cities in the United States as 
                   an ``American World War II City''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 20, 2015

 Mr. Tillis (for himself and Mr. Burr) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for the annual designation of cities in the United States as 
                   an ``American World War II City''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. ANNUAL DESIGNATION OF CITIES IN UNITED STATES AS AN 
              ``AMERICAN WORLD WAR II CITY''.

    (a) Annual Designation.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall, 
in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, designate each year at 
least one city in the United States as an ``American World War II 
City''.
    (b) Criteria for Designation.--The criteria used for designations 
under subsection (a) shall include the following:
            (1) Contributions by a city to the war effort during World 
        War II, including defense manufacturing carried out in the 
        city, bond drives conducted or supported by the city, service 
        of the population of the city in the Armed Forces, and the 
        presence of military facilities in the city.
            (2) Efforts by a city to preserve the history of the 
        contributions of the city to the war effort during World War 
        II, including through the establishment of preservation 
        organizations or museums, the restoration of facilities that 
        contributed to the war effort, and the recognition of veterans 
        of World War II.
    (c) First Designation.--The first city designated as an American 
World War II City pursuant to subsection (a) shall be the City of 
Wilmington, North Carolina.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 21.1

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

      Carver Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company") is the holding company for Carver
Federal Savings Bank (the "Bank"), a federally chartered stock savings bank. The
Bank, in turn, wholly owns three subsidiaries: CSFB Credit Corp. and CSFB Realty
Corp., both incorporated in the State of New York and Carver Asset Corp., which
is incorporated in the State of Delaware.

      The Company is the sole stockholder of Alhambra Holding Corp., a Delaware
corporation ("Alhambra"). Alhambra owns 80% of the common stock and 100% of the
preferred stock of Alhambra Realty Corp., a Delaware corporation.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-7213

LINDA ANN TYLER, Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus GLORIA JEAN RACKLEY; E. RICHARD BAZZLE, Warden of Leath Correctional Institution; CHARLESKEARNEY, JR., Captain; DIANE HAMRICK, Lieutenant; MELISSA WHITT; BERNICE WIGGLETON, Major;BARBARA L. PARTILEDGE, Officer; R. IRBY, Mental Health Counselor; DIANE LITWER, Grievance Coordinator; RANCE COBB, Principal; BETTY FLEMING, Sergeant; V. C. HILL, Lieutenant;BARBARA SHUMATE, of Operations at Leath Correctional Institution; T. J. PHILSON, Captain; SHERRI CHANDLER, Administrative Assistant, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CA-99-2845-4-22BF) Submitted: February 22, 2001 Decided: February 28, 2001 Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.2 Linda Ann Tyler, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Michael Pruitt, MCDONALD, PATRICK, TINSLEY, BAGGETT & POSTON, Greenwood, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:Linda Ann Tyler appeals from the district court’s order denying her motion to transfer her case to another judge. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. We deny all of Tyler’s outstanding motions, including her motions for reconsideration of this court’s prior orders in her case. 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 31.1








Certification Under Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002








I, Paul Feller, Chief Executive Officer of ProElite, Inc. (the “Registrant”), certify that:





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





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





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





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





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





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





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





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





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





(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.





Date: November 18, 2011





/s/ Paul FellerPaul Feller

Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)
Promissory Note-Joseph Hines, dated December 31, 2006



 Exhibit 10.3 
 PROMISSORY NOTE 
 Spheric Technologies, Inc. agrees to pay to Joseph Hines the amount of $447,000.00
upon demand after January 1, 2007 for value received with no interest noted. This amount has been created by funding loans to Spheric Technologies as a Founder in calendar year 2006 — please see the attached schedule. This liability is to
be paid in US dollars or equivalent and should be considered a general obligation of the Company. 
  

			
	By:	 	 /s/ Michael Kirksey

		 	Michael Kirksey
	Its:	 	Vice President
	Date:	 	December 31, 2006
#### STATE v. ISAAC PATRICK.

*Indictment*— Lareeny.

An indictment for larceny which describes the property stolen as; “one pound of *meat,”*&c., is fatally defective.

*(State v. Brown,*1 Dev. 137; *Godet’s*case, 7 Ire. 310; *Clark's, 8*Ire. 226 *Horan’s,*Phil. 571; *Campbell's,*76 N. C. 261; *Krider's,*78 N. C. 481; *Jenkins’,*Ib. 478, cited and approved.)

INDICTMENT for Larceny tried at Fall Term, 1877, of Lenoir Superior Court, before *Eure, J.*

The defendant was found guilty and judgment pronounced, from which he appealed. And in this Court the defendant’s counsel insisted that the bill of indictment was defective in the particular set forth in the opinion.

*Attorney General,*for the State.

*Messrs G. M. Smedes*and *Battle Mordecai,*for the defendant, relied on *State*v. *Morey,*2 Wis. 362.

Faiucloth, J.

The objection in this case is to the sufficiency of the description of the property in the bill of indictment, to wit, “ one pound of *meat*of the value of five-cents.” We find no direct authority in our Reports nor in the text books. In *State*v. Morey, 2 Wis. 362, the same *656question was presenter], and the Court held that “ in an indictment for larceny, the property which is alleged to have been stolen should be described with reasonable certainty; and a charge of stealing *meat*which applies not only to the flesh of all animals, used for food, but in a general sense, to all kinds of provisions, is too vague and uncertain.” In this conclusion we concur. Such articles have more specific names in commerce and in the country, which ought to be employed in criminal proceedings.

We cite the following cases merely as a reference to the several phases in which the question of description of stolen property has been considered': *State*v. *Brown, 1 Dev.*137; *State*v. Godet, 7 Ire. 210; *State*v. *Clark,*8 Ire. 226; *State*v. *Horan,*Phil. 571; *State*v. Campbell, 76 N. C. 261; *State*v. *Krider,*78 N. C. 481.

In *State*v. *Jenkins,*78 N. C. 478, the word *meat*is used in the syllabus and report, of the case. It should have been *bacon,*as appears from the original papers on file, and we refer to it to avoid misconception, the point there decided being different from the one in our case. Let this be certified to the end that judgment be arrested.

Error. Judgment arrested.
,,,. - ' ' ,, ¥'% r'\ !' I''\ J1 t: { h 

Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C05115120 ) 

~ . 

IAHDLE VIA ! :,; /{_c:,,~(J U., i.;.•ui ... ., 

CDffTIIOL SYSTUJ 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

WASHINGTON 

,,u /2/J- A~3>-.μ 

~ 

30 April 1969 

lllllillfllll~il)Jllliilllilllillllilll 

MEMORANDl.M FOR THE RECORD 

SUBJECT: Conversation with Dave Packard on ways of replacing 

the reconnaissance off North Korea which was being 

done by the EC-12ls on 24 April 

In the last day or so I have had several conversations with 

Dave Packard concerning my visit to the West Coast and my· 

impressions about the space activity which we have going on ,out 

there. I said I wished that we were in as good shape in the 

tactical air force as we seem to be in our space program. 

I mentioned specifically the request that had been received 

to do some collection work over North Korea with the Thresher/ 

Reaper payload, how this request was processed, the overflight 

made, and the results read out to NSA in a matter of a very few 

hours. I said I believed this kind of activity ought to be 

looked at as a possible replacement for the EC-12ls. He 

encouraged me to look into it further .. I told him that with a 

combination of U-2s, drones and satellites we ought to be able 

to cover this requirement at a much lower cost than providing 

a whole armada of ships which would be required to provide continuous C.AP over the EC-12ls. 

Meanwhile, Messrs. Laird and Packard have asked DDRE to see 

what can be done in a very short time and over a period of six 

months or so. Can we provide this reconnaissance by other means. 

Our staff, DDRE, and the Joint Reconnaissance Office are working 

together to see what can be produced in relatively short order. 

Meanwhile, Mr.Laird has asked the JCS to see what can be 

done to reduce the requirements for such reconnaissance; i.e., 

is it really needed; what can be done with umnanned vehicles; 

how much can be done by surface ships. I gather from NSA that a 

good amount of CCMINT can be collected from their ground stations 

!'!'vl ~ 

HANDLE vrA u ~ TOP SECRET 

ca:nnoL SJSUll 

Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C05115120 
DAWDLE VIA 

.,,;pproved for Release: 2020/02/07 C05115120 ) 

TAP SEC11E+ 

although they do not get good coverage over the northern half 

of North Korea. If we had high altitude drones and perhaps 

one or two ships, I believe we can get the coverage we need. 

Our satellites will be able to provide considerable ELINT 

coverage, although their tμne over target is not as long as we. 

wou_ld like. 

'YY! { L 

John L. McLucas 

C9NTP.OL SYSTEU 

TOP SECRET 

Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C05115120
#### Perszyk and another, Appellants, vs. The Milwaukee Electric Railway & Light Company, Respondent.

For the appellants : *Quarles, Spence & Quarles,*attorneys, and *Howard T. Foulkes*and *Kenneth P. Grubb*of counsel, all of Milwaukee.

For the respondent: *Shaw, Muskat ■& Paulsen,*attorneys, of Milwaukee, and *Wm. F. Schanen*of counsel of Port Washington.

*By the Court.*— Order affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-6841

SANDRA KAY CRAWLEY, 

 Petitioner – Appellant, 

 v. 

SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; WARDEN OF LEATH 

CORRECTIONAL, 

 Respondents – Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Beaufort. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. 

(9:08-cv-01051-TLW) 

Submitted: August 26, 2009 Decided: September 3, 2009 

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Sandra Kay Crawley, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, 

Deputy Assistant Attorney General, James Anthony Mabry, 

Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

Sandra Kay Crawley seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to 

grant Respondents’ motion for summary judgment and dismissing 

Crawley’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. We dismiss the 

appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was 

not timely filed. 

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of 

the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, 

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends 

the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the 

appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely 

filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional 

requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). 

The district court’s order was entered on the docket 

on March 5, 2009. The notice of appeal was filed on April 28, 

2009.* Because Crawley failed to file a timely notice of appeal 

or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we 

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

 *

For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date 

appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could 

have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to 

the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 

276 (1988). 

2 
3 

materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

DISMISSED
#### Hagenah, Appellant, vs. Milwaukee Electric Railway & Light Company, Respondent.

*May 12*

September 29, *1908.*

*Affirmance on equal division of court.*

Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Milwaukee county: Joi-in K. Paeish, Judge.

*Affirmed.*

This action was brought to recover for personal injuries. At the time of injury the plaintiff, a street laborer, was working for the Wisconsin Telephone Company placing gravel between cedar blocks in the street, and while thus employed was run into by one of defendant’s cars. The issues involved were negligence of defendant and contributory negligence of plaintiff. The court below nonsuited plaintiff, and judgment was entered in favor of defendant dismissing the complaint, from which judgment this appeal was taken.

For the appellant there was a brief by *Gliclcsman &*Gold, .and oral argument by *W. L. Gold.*

*Clarice M. Rosecrcmtz,*for the respondent.

The following opinion was filed June 17, 1908:

Pee Cueiam.

Justice Timlin having been of counsel in this case and not sitting, the court, after a careful consideration of the questions involved, is equally divided; three justices favoring affirmance and three reversal. This situation, under the established rule, necessitates affirmance of the judgment below. *Jacobs v. Queen Ins. Co.*123 Wis. 608, 101 N. W. 1090; *Swenson v. Flint,*123 Wis. 613, 101 N. W. 1135; *Francisco v. Hatch,*124 Wis. 220, 101 N. W. 1135; *Cook v. M., St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co.*125 Wis. 528, 103 N. W. 1097.

*By the Court.*— The judgment of the court below is affirmed.

A motion for a rehearing was denied September 29, 1908.
STEAM ELECTRIC

C B I R E P L AC E M E NT P A G E

EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 20 09

- 0819

DCN:

________________________________________

T H E FO LL OW ING H AS BEE N R E M O V E D BE CAUSE IT

C O N T AINS C O N F ID E N T IAL B USIN E SS IN FO RMA T I O N

(C B I) P E R 4 0 C F R P ART 2

, SU B P ART B

. SE 04360A199
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1461 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1461

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
    To provide for the extension of the enforcement instruction on 
    supervision requirements for outpatient therapeutic services in 
        critical access and small rural hospitals through 2015.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF ENFORCEMENT INSTRUCTION ON SUPERVISION 
              REQUIREMENTS FOR OUTPATIENT THERAPEUTIC SERVICES IN 
              CRITICAL ACCESS AND SMALL RURAL HOSPITALS THROUGH 2015.

    Section 1 of Public Law 113-198 is amended--
            (1) in the section heading, by inserting ``and 2015'' after 
        ``2014''; and
            (2) by striking ``calendar year 2014'' and inserting 
        ``calendar years 2014 and 2015''.

            Passed the Senate September 10, 2015.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
114th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                S. 1461

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

    To provide for the extension of the enforcement instruction on 
    supervision requirements for outpatient therapeutic services in 
        critical access and small rural hospitals through 2015.
```