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

<ARTICLE>                                            9
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
REGISTRANT'S  QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE SIX-MONTH PERIOD ENDED MARCH
31,  2000 AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY  BY  REFERENCE  TO SUCH  FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                            988
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          4,126
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                    0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                    0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    12,559
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                        182,366
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                          175,968
<LOANS>                                       256,186
<ALLOWANCE>                                     2,040
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                471,560
<DEPOSITS>                                    308,475
<SHORT-TERM>                                   25,100
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             3,924
<LONG-TERM>                                   103,776
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                           23
<OTHER-SE>                                     30,623
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                471,560
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 9,524
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               6,693
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               16,217
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              7,238
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             11,024
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           5,193
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 2,611
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 2,806
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      2,806
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                    1,935
<EPS-BASIC>                                      0.86
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.85
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                   7.08
<LOANS-NON>                                         0
<LOANS-PAST>                                      110
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                    0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                     0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                2,040
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       2
<RECOVERIES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               2,038
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                         2,038


</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

May 21, 2012 

t0514 

Order 

 

May 21, 2012 

144439 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 144439 

 COA: 299498 

Oakland CC: 2009-229756-FC 

KNIQUE DJON LAWRENCE, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 22, 2011 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Kevi n Brickner Vice Preside nt, Tech Ops I nteg ration

September 

### 3, 2015 Les Smith Manager, Air Transportation Division, AFS-200 Federal Aviation Admini s tration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W . Washington, DC 20591 

# American Airlines"

Re: Petition to Amend Exemption No. 11200- Demonstration of Emergency Evacuation Procedures Dear Mr. Smith: On March 10, 2015, the FAA issued Exemption No. 11200 granti ng American Airlines a temporary exemption from Federal Aviation Regulation {FAR) section 121.291{b)(1) -14 C.F. R. Part 121. This exemption, which currently expires on January 4, 2016 , applies to ERJ - 190-100, 757-200 and A330- 243 aircraft that were previously operated by US Airways. After discussions with our Certificate Management Office on scheduling efficiencies and updated timing of post-SOC integration efforts, American Airlines respectfully requests to extend the timeframe for completion ofthe required demonstrations to January 4, 2017. Support for this request is based on the initial petition for exemption and recognition that the significant event in the integration of new aircraft into the American Airlines fleet is the onset of cross-utilization of crews . Integration of the computer systems that will enable the cross-utilization of crews is planned to occur in several phases between late summer of 2016 and spring 2017 . Restrictions within the existing Crew Management Systems will continue to act as controls to keep the workgroups separated until all of the integration plan requirements have been met. Therefore, extending the current

P . 0 . Box 619616 , MD 5614 DFWAirport, TX 75261-9616

# American Airlines "-

exemption would not erode the current high level of safety reflected by the sequestered legacy operations. Request for Non-Publication American Airlines requests that this petition not be subject to public notice and comment proceedings . As recognized by the FAA in the initial petition, publication would not set a precedent and would cause unnecessary delay to resolve the administrative matters in this petition. Thank you for your consideration and assistance. Sincerely, Kevin Brickner Vice President- Tech Ops Integration

cc: 

### C.J. Dicesare, CMO Office Manager

2 Thomas Durrant, Assistant Field Office Manager Calvin Lott, Principle Operations Inspector Richard Bell, Principle Avionics Inspector Charles Gregory, Principle Maintenance Inspector Travis Blower, Cabin Safety Inspector
22118

#### The STATE, Respondent, v. Billy Joe LEGETTE and Levon Stone, Appellants.

(316 S. E. (2d) 411)

Supreme Court

*Appellate Defender John L. Sweeny of S. C. Office of Appellate Defense,*Columbia, *for appellants.*

*Atty. Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Asst. Atty. Gen. Harold M. Coombs, Jr.,*and *Staff Atty. Carlisle Roberts, Jr.,*Columbia and *Sol. Dudley Saleeby, Jr.,*Florence, *for respondent.*

May 29, 1984.

Per Curiam:

*12Appellants were convicted of housebreaking and grand larceny. Appellant Legette was also convicted of receiving stolen goods. The appellants argue error in the trial judge’s instruction.

The trial judge charged the jury:

> Now, I charge you, Mr. Foreman and members of the jury that when one is found in possession of recently property [sic] a rebuttable inference or presumption of fact arises that the [sic] is the thief. This presumption is one of fact and not of law. It is evidentiary in nature and not conclusive, and I further charge you upon the proof of possession of recently stolen property the law permits the inference of guilt unless you, the jury, find a reasonable explanation of such possession from all of the evidence presented.

The instruction could have been interpreted by the jury as requiring the defendants to personally rebut or explain their possession of stolen goods; therefore, the instruction was erroneous. *State v. Cooper,*279 S. C. 301, 306 S. E. (2d) 598 (1983).

We reverse the appellants’ grand larceny convictions. The remaining convictions are affirmed. The matter is remanded for a new trial on the charges of grand larceny.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4071 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 4071

  To require insurers of motor vehicles to provide coverage of bodily 
                    injuries in insurance policies.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 16, 2009

 Mr. Grayson introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To require insurers of motor vehicles to provide coverage of bodily 
                    injuries in insurance policies.

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

SECTION 1. REQUIRED COVERAGE OF BODILY INJURIES IN MOTOR VEHICLE 
              INSURANCE POLICES.

    (a) In General.--An insurer of a motor vehicle shall provide in 
each motor vehicle insurance policy such insurer issues liability 
coverage for bodily injuries and death as described in subsection (b).
    (b) Minimum Coverage.--A policy referred to in subsection (a) shall 
include, for injuries to or death of persons arising from an incident 
involving a motor vehicle or driver covered by such policy--
            (1) not less than $25,000 in liability coverage for 
        injuries to or death of an individual; and
            (2) not less than $50,000 in total liability coverage for 
        all injuries to or deaths of persons arising from such 
        incident.
    (c) Motor Vehicle Defined.--The term ``motor vehicle'' has the 
meaning given the term in section 30102(a)(6) of title 49, United 
States Code.
                                 <all>
```
AO 450 (Rev. 5/85) Judgment in a Civil Case r

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 ***** DISTRICT OF NEVADA 

BRIAN KERRY O'KEEFE, 

Petitioner, JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

v.

 CASE NUMBER: 3:16-cv-00430-MMD-VPC

ROBERT LeGRAND, et al.,

Respondent(s).

 Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have been tried

and the jury has rendered its verdict. 

 Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issues have been

tried or heard and a decision has been rendered.

 X Decision by Court. This action came to be considered before the Court. The issues have been

considered and a decision has been rendered.

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this action is dismissed without prejudice to

petitioner’s commencement of a new action in which he either pays the filing fee in full or submits a

complete application to proceed in forma pauperis, accompanied by a signed financial certificate and a

statement of his inmate account.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is denied.

August 5, 2016 LANCE S. WILSON 

Clerk

 /s/ K. Rusin 

Deputy Clerk

Case: 2:17-cv-00845-MHW-KAJ Doc #: 4 Filed: 08/05/16 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 18
MD Filed by Filing Services Canada Inc.  (403) 717-3898


 

SENTRY PETROLEUM LTD. 

SHARE OPTION PLAN 

February 28, 2009

 

OPTION COMMITMENT 

 

Notice is hereby given that, effective this 28th day of February, 2009 (the “Effective Date”) SENTRY PETROLEUM LTD. (the “Company”) has granted to John Kaldi, an Option to acquire 25,000 Common Shares (“Optioned Shares”) up to 5:00 p.m. Pacific time on the 28th day of February, 2014 (the “Expiry Date”) at a Exercise Price of US$1.04 per share. Optioned Shares may be acquired as follows: 

			
	 

	(a) 

	1/3 of the total number of Optioned Shares granted will vest twelve months after the Effective Date;


	 

	 

	 


	 

	(b) 

	a further 1/3 of the total number of Optioned Shares granted will vest 24 months after the Effective Date; and


	 

	 

	 


	 

	(c) 

	the remaining 1/3 of the total number of Optioned Shares granted will vest 36 months after the Effective Date.




The grant of the Optioned Shares evidenced hereby is made subject to the terms and conditions of the Company’s Share Option Plan, the terms and conditions of which are hereby incorporated in this Option Commitment. 

To exercise your Option, deliver to the Company at its then principal business office, a written notice specifying the number of Optioned Shares you wish to acquire, together with cash or a certified cheque payable to the Company for the aggregate Exercise Price. A certificate for the Optioned Shares so acquired will be issued by the transfer agent as soon as practicable thereafter and will bear a legend stipulating any resale restrictions required under applicable securities laws. 

 

SENTRY PETROLEUM LTD. 



President 





I hereby acknowledge receipt of a copy of the Plan and agree to be bound by the terms of the Plan. This commitment supersedes any prior Option or commitment made to me. 

  

OPTIONEE 

_JOHN KALDI_______________________________

Name:       _John Kaldi_________________________

Address:    ___________________________________

                  ___________________________________
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4214 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 392
111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4214

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 19, 2010

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

                              May 18, 2010

              Reported by Mr. Lieberman, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 45300 Portola Avenue in Palm Desert, California, as the ``Roy Wilson 
                             Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. ROY WILSON POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 45300 Portola Avenue in Palm Desert, California, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Roy Wilson Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Roy Wilson 
Post Office''.
                                                       Calendar No. 392

111th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 4214

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 45300 Portola Avenue in Palm Desert, California, as the ``Roy Wilson 
                             Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                              May 18, 2010

                       Reported without amendment
```
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ARTEM KOSHKALDA, individually and

as sole Shareholder and Transferee of ART,

LLC,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

SEIKO EPSON CORPORATION; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees,

and

E. LYNN SCHOENMANN,

Trustee. No. 19

- 56187

D.C. No. 2:18

- cv

- 05087

- FMO

AGR

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Fernando M. Olguin, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 8, 2020 * *

Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

* 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

SEP 15 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 19

- 56187

Artem Koshkalda appeals pro se from the district court’s orders denying his

motions to set aside his voluntary dismissal of this action

. We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s

ruling on motions brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)

. Valdivia

v. S chwarzenegger , 599 F.3d 984, 988 (9th Cir. 2010) . We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Koshkalda’s Rule

60(b) motions to set aside the bankruptcy trustee’s voluntary dismissal of t his

action because Koshkalda present ed no basis for such relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

60(b); United States v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Co. , 984 F.2d 1047, 1049 ( 9th

Cir. 1993) ( explaining that Rule 60(b)(6) relief has been used “sparingly” and

requires “extraordinary circumstances ” )

.

W e do not consider Koshkalda’s contentions challenging rulings in his

bankruptcy case because such a challenge is outside the scope of this appeal.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001107343
<NAME>                        Lautrec, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Currency

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Sep-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 Oct-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   Jun-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       600
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   0
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               10,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (10,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (10,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.001)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0



</TABLE>
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 21

- 00212

- CR

E X PARTE M ICHAEL M ALLETT §

§

§

§

§ On Appeal from Criminal District C ourt No. 2

of Tarrant County ( c

- 2

- W012049

- 0249382

- C )

April 2 1 , 2022

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Walker

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that the

appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that th e appeal is dismissed for want of

jurisdiction

.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Brian Walker

Justice Brian Walker
#### Adams, Frost *&*Co., *vs.*W. H. Smith. G. Muller, *vs.*J. W. Earheart. Adams, Frost & Co., *vs.*T. P. Lide.

The debtor, in a judgment on contract recovered before the adoption of tlie Constitution of 1S68, may claim the homestead exemption allowed by that Constitution, as against the lien of such judgment.

Each of these cases involved the question decided in . the case of *Kennedy,*(ante, p. 216,) namely, whether a homestead exemption may be claimed as against a judgment entered up before the adoption of the Constitution of 1868, and in each the result was the same as in that case;

Willard, A. J., and Wright, A. J., holding that the exemption may be claimed, and Moses, C. J., dissenting.
EXHIBIT 32.b



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Boston Capital Tax Credit Fund II L.P. (the "Fund") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Marc N. Teal, Principal Financial Officer of the Fund's general partner, Boston Capital Associates II L.L.C., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge, after due inquiry:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)-15 or 15(d)-15 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and                  
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|    |                                                                                                                                                  
|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Fund.



|                |  |                            
|--------------- |  | ---------------------------
|Date:           |  |                            
|August 16, 2010 |  | /s/ Marc N. Teal           
|                |  |                            
|                |  | Marc N. Teal               
|                |  | Principal Financial Officer
|                |  |                            
|                |  |                            



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other

document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Fund and will be retained by the Fund and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Case 1:00-cr-00090-SSB     Document 117      Filed 08/15/2008     Page 1 of 1