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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-Q OF
RARE HOSPITALITY INTERNATIONAL, INC. FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 27, 1999 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-26-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-27-1999
<CASH>                                           2,747
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,069
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      9,768
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                27,309
<PP&E>                                         173,134<F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 215,059
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           31,856
<BONDS>                                         48,706
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       106,986
<OTHER-SE>                                      20,856
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   215,059
<SALES>                                        186,291
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               186,370
<CGS>                                           66,770
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  157,276
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                14,320
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,962
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,909
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,925
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,984
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                        1,587
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,397
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.54
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.52
<FN>
<F1>ASSET VALUES REPRESENT NET AMOUNTS.
</FN>


</TABLE>
#### Andrew Kwasi DONKOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. People of the State of CALIFORNIA, in their official capacity; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-55829

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 14, 2017 *

Filed February 24, 2017

Andrew Kwasi Donkor, Pro Se

Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

**The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Andrew Kwasi Donkor appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismiss-*569mg his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations in connection with the alleged seizure of his automobile and other personal property. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) for failure to state a claim. *Barren v. Harrington,*152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Donkor’s action against defendant Manhattan Beach Tow because Donkor failed to allege facts in his second amended complaint sufficient to show that Manhattan Beach Tow’s actions constituted state action. *See Ashcroft v. Iqbal,*556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (explaining that “[a] pleading that offers labels and conclusions” or “naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement” fails to satisfy federal pleading standards (citations, internal quotation marks, and alteration omitted)); *DeGrassi v. City of Glendora,*207 F.3d 636, 647 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[B]are allegation[s]” of “joint action -will not overcome a motion to dismiss; the plaintiff must allege facts tending to show that [defendants] acted under color of state law or authority.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

The district court properly dismissed Donkor’s action against the remaining defendants because . Donkor failed to allege facts in his second amended complaint sufficient to show that Donkor’s constitutional rights were violated pursuant to a policy, practice, or custom of a governmental defendant. *See Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs.,*436 U.S. 658, 690-91, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978) (setting forth requirements for municipal liability); *see also Castro v. County of Los Angeles,*833 F.3d 1060, 1075 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (municipal liability requires “direct causal link between a municipal policy or custom and the alleged constitutional deprivation” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S

N O . A P - 7 6 , 4 9 6

E X P A R T E J A S O N L Y N N C H A N N E L , A p p l i c a n t

O N A P P L I C A T I O N F O R A W R I T O F H A B E A S C O R P U S C A U S E N O . F 1 0 1 7 5 2 6 - A I N T H E 1 4 5 D I S T R I C T C O U R T T H F R O M N A C O G D O C H E S C O U N T Y

P e r c u r i a m . O P I N I O N Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Crimi n al P ro ce d ure, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted o f aggr avate d assault and se ntence d to ten y ear s’ imprisonment. He did not appea l his conviction. Applicant contends that h i s p lea was involuntary beca use the plea ag ree ment cannot be followed. Trial counsel and the prosec utor both filed aff idavits with the trial court

. Ba s ed on those aff idavits, the trial court deter mined t h at applicant plead g uilty pursuant to an ag ree ment that he2

would be considere d for shock probation if he did n o t h av e any behavior problems while incar cer ated. This ag ree ment is unenfor cea ble due to Applicant’s previous prison sentenc e. Applicant is entitled to relief

. Ex parte Hue rta , 692 S.W .2d 681 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985). Relief is g rante d. The judgme nt in C au s e No

. F1017526-A in the 145 J udicial District t h Court of Nac og doches County is set aside, and a

pplicant is r emande d to the custody of the Sheriff of Na cog doches County

to answer

the cha rg e ag ainst him. Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the Te xa s D e p a r tm e n t o f Cr im in al J ustice–Corre ctional I nstitut ions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Deliver ed: Fe bruar

y 9, 2011 Do Not Publish
PEMCO-01252016-00005

Date: January 24, 2016 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) RE: Petition for an Amendment to Exemption 8057 Refererences: /A/ Regulatory Docket No. 2003-14587 Exemption 8057 /B/ FAA Project No. SA15076AT-T Dear FAA, Pemco World Air Services request relief from regulations:
1. 14 CFR 25.785(j) Amendment 25-88 2. 14 CFR 25.855(a) Amendment 25-93 3. 14 CFR 25.857(e) Amendment 25-93 4. 14 CFR 25.1447(c)(1) Amendment 25-87 5. 14 CFR 121.583(a) Pemco is requesting an amendment to the current exemption 8057 to permit carriage of 2 additional non-crew persons on an all-freighter airplane. This request would change the current restriction of 2 non-crew members to 4 non-crew members. Pemco notes that precautions and instructions for the current Exemption 8057 has not changed for the existing 2 non-crew members. The oxygen supply and associated instructions and 

### warning including signs and notifications are the same as described in Exemption 8057 for 2 noncrew members. For the 2 additional non-crew members in the vestibule, the associated instructions and warnings are identical to the B737-300. Oxygen supply in case of depressurization is ensured by portable oxygen bottles installed directly adjacent to the double flight attendant seat (supernumerary). Portable oxygen mask are connected to the high pressure outlet. When oxygen masks need to be used, occupants are notified by a chime and by lighted signs located within view. Activation of signs have not changed. The original Supporting Argument of Exemption 8057 also applies to the this petition for amendment. 

## Sin rely, . 

# &Z ~ — vy' Victor Burnett Director of Engineering Pemco World Air Services, Inc 4102 N. Westshore Blvd. Tampa, FL 33614 Phone: 813-322-9637 Mobile: 334-791-9601 Email: victor.burnett@pemcoair.com PAGE 1 OF 1

4102 N. WESTSHORE BLVD ® TAMPA, FL 33614 ® PHONE (813) 322-9600
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Richard A. Ross, as Chief Financial Officer of The FINOVA Group Inc. (the Company) certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1) the accompanying Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2) the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                  |  |  |  |     |  |                     |  |                                                                      
|----------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------
|                  |  |  | 
|Date: May 9, 2007 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Richard A. Ross
|                  |  |  |  |     |  |                     |  | Richard A. Ross Chief Financial Officer (principal financial officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>




<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000882973
<NAME> CHESTNUT PARTNERSHIP
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       1,908,751
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  212,365
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,888,452
<PP&E>                                         219,937
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,416,279
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,106,067
<BONDS>                                     13,505,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,416,279
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,920,066
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,989,537
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (655,016)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                477,972
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   477,972
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1 Section 906 CEO Certification

     CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the filing of this report on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter
ended July 5, 2005 (the "Report") by Pomeroy IT Solutions, Inc., the undersigned
hereby certifies that:

     1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and

     2.   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of Pomeroy IT Solutions, Inc.


          March 31, 2006          /s/ Stephen E. Pomeroy
                                 ----------------------
                                 Stephen E. Pomeroy
                                 Chief Executive Officer and President


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Pomeroy IT Solutions, Inc. and will be retained by Pomeroy IT
Solutions, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
----

**CERTIFICATION        PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|   | 1. | The                  Report containing the financial statements fully complies with                  the                  requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange                  Act of                  1934, as amended, and |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | The                  information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                  respects, the financial condition and results of operation of Pomeroy                  IT                  Solutions, Inc. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| November                15, 2007 |
|----------------------------------|
|                             | /s/                  Keith R. Coogan |
|                             | Keith                  R. Coogan |
|                             | Chief                  Executive Officer and President |

----
#### Edward STARLING, Appellant v. C. Ashley ROYAL, Appellee

No. 16-5184

September Term, 2016

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Filed On: May 17, 2017

Edward Starling, Pro Se

R. Craig Lawrence, U.S. Attorney’s Office, (USA) Civil Division,. Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellee

BEFORE: Kavanaugh and Wilkins, Circuit Judges, and Ginsburg, Senior Circuit Judge

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief and supplements filed by appellant. *16See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s March 22, 2016 order denying leave to file documents and enjoining appellant from filing any other submissions in this closed case (except for the notice of appeal currently before this court) be affirmed. Appellant has not presented any arguments relevant to this order, and he has therefore forfeited any possible arguments. See United States ex rel. Totten v. Bombardier Corp., 380 F.3d 488, 497 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (“Ordinarily, arguments that parties do not make on appeal are deemed to have been waived.”). Moreover, this appeal is untimely as to the October 29, 2015 order dismissing appellant’s complaint. Appellant did not move to extend the time to appeal within 30 days after the time to appeal expired, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5); nor did he move to reopen the appeal within the earlier of 180 days after entry of the order or 14 days after he received notice of its entry, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.
Dale R. PATE, DOC #263121, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-4282

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 2, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Order entered March 18, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-20-00265-CV

CITY OF FORT WORTH, Appellant

V.

WILLIAM BIRCHETT, Appellee

On Appeal from the 162nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-19-06941

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s unopposed March 17, 2020 motion for 

extension of time to file its brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER appellant’s 

brief due on or before April 27, 2020.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7626

JEFFREY A. PLEASANT,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WENDELL W. PIXLEY, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior

District Judge. (3:16-cv-00416-REP-RCY)

Submitted: March 30, 2017 Decided: April 4, 2017

Before TRAXLER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeffrey A. Pleasant, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jeffrey A. Pleasant seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order construing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition as a 28 

U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, and dismissing it as successive. 

We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because 

Pleasant’s notice of appeal was not timely filed. 

In civil actions in which the federal government is not a 

party, parties are accorded 30 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 

September 15, 2016. The notice of appeal was filed on November 

10, 2016. Although the district court erroneously informed 

Pleasant that he had 60 days to appeal, the jurisdictional 

nature of the filing requirement and Pleasant’s failure to file 

a timely notice of appeal deprive this court of jurisdiction. 

See id. at 214 (“[T]his Court has no authority to create 

equitable exceptions to jurisdictional requirements.”). 

Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and 

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the 
3

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED
Richard LEYTON, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Janette LEYTON, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0607

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 11, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 23

                         Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 33-17030) pertaining to the 1986 Stock Option Plan; in the Registration
Statements (Forms S-8 No. 33-68474, No. 33-24122, No. 33-30716 and No.
333-17259) pertaining to the 1988 Stock Option Plan; in the Registration
Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-59861) pertaining to the 1997 Stock Option Plan; in
the Registration Statements (Forms S-8 No. 33-68476 and No. 333-71971)
pertaining to the Stock Option Plan for Nonemployee Directors; and in the
Registration Statements (Forms S-3 No. 33-87948, No. 333-28139, No. 333-29171, 
No. 333-45803 and No. 333-69317, and Form S-4 No. 33-06901) and in the related
Prospectuses of Duramed Pharmaceuticals, Inc. of our report dated March 29, 1999
with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Duramed
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K/A) for the year
ended December 31, 1998.



                                                               ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Cincinnati, Ohio
March 29, 1999
#### Ronnie T. SHELTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nancy A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner Of the Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-2440

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 25, 2017

Decided: August 15, 2017

*58Ronnie T. Shelton, Appellant Pro Se. Evelyn Rose Marie Protano, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Appellee,

Before MOTZ, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Ronnie T. Shelton filed a complaint in the district court seeking review of the Appeals Council’s decision dismissing a subsequent application for disability insurance benefits on res judicata grounds. Shelton now appeals the district court’s order dismissing

his complaint without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and the order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Shelton v. Berryhill,*No. 5:15-cv-00027-MFU-JCH (W.D. Va. Sept. 13, 2016 & Nov. 23, 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*
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1219 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1219

    To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the age 
  requirement with respect to eligibility for qualified ABLE programs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 23, 2021

  Mr. Cardenas (for himself, Mrs. Rodgers of Washington, and Ms. Chu) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the age 
  requirement with respect to eligibility for qualified ABLE programs.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``ABLE Age Adjustment Act''.

SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF AGE REQUIREMENT FOR QUALIFIED ABLE PROGRAMS.

    (a) In General.--Section 529A(e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 is amended by striking ``age 26'' in paragraphs (1)(A) and 
(2)(A)(i)(II) and inserting ``age 46''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```