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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     Textainer Equipment Income Fund IV, LP
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000882288
<NAME>                        Textainer Equipment Income Fund IV, LP
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     US Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         1,598
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  5,716
<ALLOWANCES>                                   656
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               137
<PP&E>                                         125,034
<DEPRECIATION>                                 39,356
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 92,473
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,807
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     90,666
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   92,473
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               11,112
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  7,893
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (269)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                3,488
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   3,488
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        


</TABLE>
# Materials Not Included in **Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket**

Docket Number: FAA- 2012 - 1157 Directorate Identifier: 2012NM061AD

ISB. 24 - 143 --- 9/26/11

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
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-3, No. 333-58296 and 333-65776) and related prospectusesof Insight Communications Company, Inc. for the registration of up to $1 billion in aggregate offering price in various combinations of its Class A Common Stock, preferred stock, debt securities, warrants or subscription rights and the RegistrationStatements (Form S-8, Nos. 333-57808 and 333-107666) pertaining to the Insight Communications Company, Inc. 1999 Equity Incentive Plan of our report dated March 7, 2005, except for Note 16, as to which the date is March 15, 2005, with respect to theconsolidated financial statements of Insight Communications Company, Inc., and our report dated March 7, 2005 with respect to Insight Communications Company, Inc. management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Insight Communications Company, Inc., included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2004. 

 

/s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP 

 

New York, New York 

March 15, 2005
Brian M. BEAUCHAMP, Appellant, v. The BANK OF NEW TRUST COMPANY, N.A., as successor to JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as trustee, and Lois Taylor, Appellees.

No. 4D17-2417

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 12, 2018

Robert P. Summers and Jessica M. VanValkenburgh of McCarthy, Summers, Bobko, Wood, Norman, Bass & Melby, P.A., Stuart, for appellant.

Marc James Ayers of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, Birmingham, AL, and Brian M. Rolson of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, Charlotte, N.C., for appellee The Bank of New York Trust Company, N.A., as successor to JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., as trustee.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed.*

Warner, Gross and Levine, JJ., concur.
#### UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. William Roderick WORRELS Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-4145

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: April 5, 2017

Filed: April 11, 2017

Richard D. Westphal, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Davenport, IA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

William Roderick Worrels, Pro Se

Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

William Worrels appeals from the sentence the District Court1 imposed after revoking his supervised release. The court sentenced him to ten months in prison and fifty-five months of supervised release. On *535appeal, Worrels’s counsel argues that the revocation sentence is unreasonable and has moved for leave to withdraw.

We conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion and that the sentence is not substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Growden, 663 F.3d 982, 984 (8th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (standard of review). Both the prison term and the supervised-release term are within the statutory limits, and the prison term is within the applicable advisory U.S. Sentencing Guidelines range. See United States v. Petreikis, 551 F.3d 822, 824 (8th Cir. 2009) (applying a presumption of substantive reasonableness to a revocation sentence within the Guidelines range). We affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

1

. The Honorable John A. Jarvey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony Gene TRAPPIER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6833

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: October 19, 2017

Decided: October 24, 2017

Anthony Gene Trappier, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Frank Daley, Jr„ Susan Zalkin Hitt, Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina; Arthur Bradley Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

*251Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Gene Trappier appeals the district court’s order construing his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motions for reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as successive § 2265 motions, and dismissing them on that basis. We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court correctly determined that Trappier’s motions were not “true Rule 60(b)” motions but, in substance, successive § 2255 motions. *See United States v. McRae,*793 F.3d 392, 397-400 (4th Cir. 2015); see *also Gonzalez v. Crosby,*545 U.S. 524, 531-32, 125 S.Ct. 2641, 162 L.Ed.2d 480 (2005) (explaining how to differentiate between a true Rule 60(b) motion and an unauthorized successive habeas motion). We therefore conclude that Trappier is not required to obtain a certificate of appealability to appeal the district court’s order. *See McRae,*793 F.3d at 400. We nonetheless conclude that the district court correctly determined that, in the absence of prefil-ing authorization, it lacked jurisdiction to consider the successive § 2255 motions. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) (2012). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.

Additionally, we construe Trappier’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. *United States v. Winestock,*340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on either:

> (1) newly discovered evidence that ... would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense; or

> (2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable.

28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). Trappier’s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria. We therefore deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion. 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 in the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
of CytRx Corporation of our report dated March 9, 1999, included in the 1998
Annual Report to Shareholders of CytRx Corporation.

Our audits also included the financial statement schedule of CytRx Corporation
listed in Item 14(a). This schedule is the responsibility of the Company's
management.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our audits.
In our opinion, as of the date of our report referred to in the preceding
paragraph, the financial statement schedule referred to above, when considered
in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly
in all material respects the information set forth therein.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 Nos. 33-48706 and 333-31717 pertaining to the CytRx
Corporation 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan, No. 33-93816 pertaining to the CytRx
Corporation 1994 Stock Option Plan, and No. 33-93818 pertaining to the CytRx
Corporation 1995 Stock Option Plan, and on Form S-3 Nos. 33-93820, 333-39607,
333-44043 and 333-48837 and the related Prospectuses, of our report dated 
March 9, 1999, with respect to the consolidated financial statements 
incorporated herein by reference, and our report included in the preceding 
paragraph with respect to the financial statement schedule included in this 
Annual Report (Form 10-K) of CytRx Corporation.


                                                           /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Atlanta, Georgia
March 26, 1999
Cedrick Lawarren CLARIDY, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0532

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 28, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
EX-21.1
LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES



|Wholly-Owned
                                                                                                      Subsidiaries of Arrayit
                                                                                                      Corp.                            | Jurisdiction
    of Organization       | Percentage
    owned by Parent
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------- | ------------------------------
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  | TeleChem
    International, Inc        | Nevada                        
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  | Arrayit
    Marketing, Inc.            | Nevada                        
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  |                                        |                               
|Partially
                                                                                                                  Owned Subsidiaries
                                                                                                                  of Arrayit Corp. |                                        |                               
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  |                                       
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  | Arrayit
    Scientific Solutions, Inc. | Nevada                        
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  | Avant
    Diagnostics, Inc.            | Nevada
Wesley MCLEOD, Appellant, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, Aurora Loan Services, LLC, Bank of America, N.A., Chase Bank USA, National Association f/k/a Chase Manhattan Bank, John M. McLeod, Teri McLeod and Teresa McLeod, Appellees.

Case No. 5D17-2678

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed January 30, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
APPENDIX A: 

Yellowstone County (part) Nonattainment Area Attainment Demonstration

January 16, 2015 Letter from Montana Department of Environmental Quality Air Resources 

Management Bureau Chief, Dave Klemp, letter to EPA Region 8 Air Director, Carl Daly, “Request 

for Yellowstone County (part) SO2 Nonattainment Area Clean Data Determination”

January 16, 2015 Letter from Montana Department of Environmental Quality Air Resources 

Management Bureau Chief, Dave Klemp, to EPA Regional Administrator, Shaun McGrath, Coburn 

Road Monitoring Data and Certification

February 9, 2013 Bison Engineering Inc. “A Summary of Historical Ambient SO2 Monitoring in the 

Billings Area For Billings-Laurel Air Quality Technical Committee”
Outha JAMES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-2529

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 4, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
CITY OF MIAMI, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. GREEN TREE SERVICING, LLC, et al., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-1935

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

SEPTEMBER 26, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Martha BEARD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-1988

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 4, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
No. 85-6610.

#### Myers *v.*Guillory, Warden, et al.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         882860
<NAME>                        PILGRIM AMERICA CAPITAL CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000
<CURRENCY>                                U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                             451
<SECURITIES>                                    21,699
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,511
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                24,661
<PP&E>                                           1,949
<DEPRECIATION>                                     671
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  61,596
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,256
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            81
<OTHER-SE>                                      47,839
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    61,596
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                24,858
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                13,476
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 334
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,048
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,543
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,505
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,505
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.06
        

</TABLE>
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000799235
<NAME>                        
<MULTIPLIER>                                   <blank>
<CURRENCY>                                     <blank>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   <blank>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              <blank>
<PERIOD-START>                                 <blank>
<PERIOD-END>                                   <blank>
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                <blank>
<CASH>                                         <blank>
<SECURITIES>                                   <blank>
<RECEIVABLES>                                  <blank>
<ALLOWANCES>                                   <blank>
<INVENTORY>                                    <blank>
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               <blank>
<PP&E>                                         <blank>
<DEPRECIATION>                                 <blank>
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 <blank>
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          <blank>
<BONDS>                                        <blank>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          <blank>
<PREFERRED>                                    <blank>
<COMMON>                                       <blank>
<OTHER-SE>                                     <blank>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   <blank>
<SALES>                                        <blank>
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               <blank>
<CGS>                                          <blank>
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  <blank>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               <blank>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               <blank>
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             <blank>
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                <blank>
<INCOME-TAX>                                   <blank>
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            <blank>
<DISCONTINUED>                                 <blank>
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                <blank>
<CHANGES>                                      <blank>
<NET-INCOME>                                   <blank>
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  <blank>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  <blank>
        



</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Kody Jude BONIN, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-20727 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed August 10, 2017

Robert Joel Branman, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division, Appellate Section, Washington, DC, Lewis A. Booth, II, Internal Revenue Service, District Counsel, Houston, TX, Michael J. Haungs, Esq., Supervisory Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division, Appellate Section, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Kody Jude Bonin, Pro Se

Before REAVLEY, PRADO, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The order of the district court is affirmed and Petitioner must comply. No reasons are given by this taxpayer for failing to do so.

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### Gary SHORTT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-6465

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 20, 2017

Decided: June 23, 2017

Gary Shortt, Appellant Pro Se.

Eugene Paul Murphy, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Gary Shortt seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition and the court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. The orders are not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of ap-pealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard *136by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Shortt has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*