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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           8,759
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   37,422
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                77,399
<PP&E>                                         185,029
<DEPRECIATION>                                 105,232
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 185,241
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           68,399
<BONDS>                                            215
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           183
<OTHER-SE>                                     110,370
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   185,241
<SALES>                                        188,886
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               188,886
<CGS>                                           79,027
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  141,992
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,722
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 44,172
<INCOME-TAX>                                    19,030
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             25,142
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    25,142
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.36
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.33
        

</TABLE>
Audrie BLOOM, Appellant, v. IRONHORSE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION INC., a Florida not-for-profit-corporation, Richard Litner and Donald Gundermann, Appellees.

No. 4D17-1985

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[April 11, 2018]

Audrie Bloom, Boynton Beach, pro se.

Therese A. Savona and Kathryn L. Ender of Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., Miami, for appellee Ironhorse Property Owners Association Inc.

Gerber, C.J.

A property owners association's former board member appeals from the circuit court's final judgment confirming a voluntary binding arbitration award in the association's favor. Because the former board member's appeal does not raise a constitutional issue, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to section 44.104, Florida Statutes (2016):

> (10) An appeal of a voluntary binding arbitration decision shall be taken to the circuit court and shall be limited to review on the record and not de novo, of:

> (a) Any alleged failure of the arbitrators to comply with the applicable rules of procedure or evidence.

> (b) Any alleged partiality or misconduct by an arbitrator prejudicing the rights of any party.

> (c) Whether the decision reaches a result contrary to the Constitution of the United States or of the State of Florida.

> ....

> (12) ... *No further review shall be permitted unless a constitutional issue is raised.*

§ 44.104(10), (12), Fla. Stat. (2016) (emphasis added). *See also**Kaplan v. Epstein* , 219 So.3d 932, 933 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) ("Pursuant *779to section 44.104, when parties agree to submit to voluntary binding arbitration, their appeal is to the circuit court, and no further review is permitted unless a constitutional issue is raised.").

*Dismissed.*

May and Damoorgian, JJ., concur.
STATE of Louisiana v. Stanley GRIGSBY

NO. 2017-KO-0670

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 18, 2018

Denied.
Jermaine Leon YOUNG v. STATE

CR-15-1462

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

April 7, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Reh. denied.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DeWAYNE THOMPSON,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

J. DePOND, Correctional Officer,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 14-15993

D.C. No. 1:13-cv-00527-AWIBAM

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 18, 2014** 

Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

DeWayne Thompson, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the

district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging an Eighth

Amendment violation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review

de novo. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000) (dismissal under 28

FILED

DEC 08 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
U.S.C. § 1915A); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998)

(order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Thompson’s action because Thompson

failed to allege facts sufficient to show that he suffered extreme deprivations

constituting an Eighth Amendment violation. See Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S.

1, 9 (1992) (“[E]xtreme deprivations are required to make out a conditions-ofconfinement claim.”); Johnson v. Lewis, 217 F.3d 726, 731-32 (9th Cir. 2000) (to

determine whether a constitutional violation has occurred, the circumstances,

nature, and duration of a deprivation must be considered; more modest

deprivations must be lengthy or ongoing). 

We reject Thompson’s contention that the district court erroneously failed to

address the subjective component of the alleged Eighth Amendment violation.

AFFIRMED.

2 14-15993
John W. URIBE, M.D., Appellant, v. Otis J. MCDUFFIE, Appellee.

No. 3D17-0358

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed October 4, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

ROYLAND RICE, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 20-10207 

D.C. No. 4:12-cr-00818-PJH-1 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Phyllis J. Hamilton, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 18, 2021**

Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

Royland Rice appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his 

motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). We have 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We vacate and remand with instructions that 

the motion be dismissed without prejudice.

* 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

MAY 21 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 20-10207 

An inmate may file a motion for compassionate release in the district court 

“after the defendant has fully exhausted all administrative rights to appeal a failure 

of the Bureau of Prisons to bring a motion on the defendant’s behalf or the lapse of 

30 days from the receipt of such a request by the warden of the defendant’s 

facility.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). The requests for compassionate release the 

district court cited as proof of exhaustion were directed to Rice’s unit manager and 

made no mention of COVID-19 or any medical conditions; indeed, in one of his

requests, Rice denied any serious medical issues. As the government argues, these

requests were insufficient to meet the exhaustion requirement. See 28 C.F.R.

§ 571.61(a) (inmate’s request to the BOP must be submitted to the warden and, at a 

minimum, contain the “extraordinary or compelling circumstances that the inmate 

believes warrant consideration”). In light of the mandatory language of the 

compassionate release statute,1the district court lacked authority to address Rice’s

motion. See Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850, 1856-57 (2016). 

Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order and remand with 

instructions that it dismiss Rice’s motion without prejudice. Rice is free to file 

another motion for compassionate release in the district court, and we express no 

1 Because it does not affect our decision, we do not decide whether the exhaustion 

requirement under § 3582(c)(1)(A) is jurisdictional or “a mandatory claimprocessing rule subject to forfeiture,” Fort Bend Cnty. v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 1843, 

1851 (2019). Even if it is solely a claim-processing rule, the government has 

invoked it here, requiring dismissal of Rice’s motion. See id. at 1849.
3 20-10207 

opinion as to the merits of such a motion.

VACATED and REMANDED.
United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

February 16, 2018

Before

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge

No. 15‐2138

KELVIN NORWOOD,

Plaintiff‐Appellant,

v.

PARTHASARATHI GHOSH, et al.,

Defendants‐Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Illinois,

Eastern Division.

No. 11‐CV‐988

Charles R. Norgle,

Judge.

O R D E R

The court hereby AMENDS the first sentence on page 5 of the order issued on

January 26, 2018, to read as follows: Norwood saw the outside orthopedic surgeon, Dr.

Samuel Chmell, on November 23, 2009.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis Panel; Program Project.                    

*Date:*                         March 8, 2022.                    

*Time:*                         11:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Dario Dieguez, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Aging, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 827-3101,                         *dario.dieguez@nih.gov.*

This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: February 11, 2022.

David W. Freeman, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2022-03384 Filed 2-15-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
<PAGE>
                                                                      Exhibit 14

                        PACIFIC CONTINENTAL CORPORATION
                            PACIFIC CONTINENTAL BANK

                                 CODE OF ETHICS
                         FOR SENIOR FINANCIAL OFFICERS

Pacific Continental Corporation ("Company") and Pacific Continental Bank
("Bank") expects the Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer,
Controller and persons performing similar functions to adhere and advocate to
the Company's Conflict of Interest/ Code of Ethics/ Confidentiality Policy and
to the following principles governing their professional and ethical conduct:

      -     Conduct themselves in an honest and ethical manner, including the
            ethical handling of actual or apparent conflicts of interest between
            personal and professional relationships.

      -     Prepare periodic reports filed with the public, the SEC and other
            regulatory agencies in an accurate, complete, fair and
            understandable manner.

      -     Comply with the SEC, Nasdaq, and other regulatory bodies as well as
            Federal, State, and local government laws and regulations having
            jurisdiction on Pacific Continental Corporation and individuals.

      -     To not act upon or disclose "non-public material" information prior
            to it being made generally available to the public.

      -     Respect the confidentiality of sensitive information revealed during
            the course of his/her job responsibilities; and, except on a need to
            know basis, to not reveal or discuss sensitive information unless
            previously authorized or legally obligated to do so.

      -     Require ethical behavior among subordinates and peers within the
            organization(s).

      -     To not use corporate information, assets, opportunities or his/her
            position with Pacific Continental for personal gain or privilege.

      -     To annually certify compliance with this "Code of Ethics."

The board of directors of Pacific Continental will review and when necessary
make changes and adopt the revised policy. The board has the authority to take
action concerning violations of this Policy and the Conflict of Interest/Code of
Ethics/Confidentiality Policy of Pacific Continental Corporation and Bank.

When required Pacific Continental will make public this document public by
filing as an exhibit in annual reports. Changes to the Code of Ethics for Senior
Financial Officers will be disclosed on a Form 8-K.

Approved by the Board of Directors, September 16, 2003
Tavarus SHAW, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D16-3590

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[May 24, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

The certification set forth
below is being submitted in connection with the Quarterly Report of First Data Corporation on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 (the Report) for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

Jonathan J. Judge, the Chief Executive Officer of First Data Corporation, certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and

2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of First Data Corporation.



|                   |  |                                          
|------------------ |  | -----------------------------------------
|Date: May 13, 2011 |  | /S/    JONATHAN J.
JUDGE                 
|                   |  | Jonathan J. Judge Chief Executive Officer
ex10-3.htm


    EXHIBIT
10.3

    


    Terms of
Employment Arrangement

    between
Bay National Bank

    and
Richard J. Oppitz

    


    Mr.
Oppitz was employed on an at-will basis at a rate of pay of $157,500 as of
September 5, 2008 until his termination effective January 7,
2009.  While employed, Mr. Oppitz was also eligible for incentive
bonuses at the discretion of the Compensation Committee of the Board of
Directors, and was entitled to all benefits available to full time employees of
Bay National Bank.

    


    No
discretionary bonuses were paid to Mr. Oppitz for the period ended December 31,
2008.
ALASKA SEAFOOD CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE 

EPA-HQ-OW-2013-0652

DCN: 00447CBI

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT 

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6227 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6227

    To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to expand the 
 tropical disease product priority review voucher program to encourage 
            prevention and treatment of coccidioidomycosis.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            November 3, 2023

 Mr. Schweikert (for himself, Mr. McCarthy, Mr. Burgess, Mr. Self, Mr. 
  Ciscomani, Mr. Armstrong, Mr. Gallego, Ms. Caraveo, Mr. Costa, Mr. 
   Grijalva, Mrs. Steel, Mr. Levin, Ms. De La Cruz, and Mr. Valadao) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                          Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to expand the 
 tropical disease product priority review voucher program to encourage 
            prevention and treatment of coccidioidomycosis.

    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 ``Adding Coccidioidomycosis to the FDA 
Priority Review Voucher Program Act of 2023''.

SEC. 2. EXPANDING TROPICAL DISEASE PRODUCT PRIORITY REVIEW VOUCHER 
              PROGRAM TO ENCOURAGE PREVENTION AND TREATMENT OF 
              COCCIDIOIDOMYCOSIS.

    Section 524(a)(3) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 
U.S.C. 360n(a)(3)) is amended--
            (1) by redesignating subparagraph (S) as subparagraph (T); 
        and
            (2) by inserting after subparagraph (R) the following:
                    ``(S) Coccidioidomycosis.''.
                                 <all>
```
Shannon WESTFALL v. Randy GOGGINS

2016-CT-00727-COA

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Filed: March 21, 2018 Closed: June 7, 2018

Certiorari - Denied.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Julius Adair WILEY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6017

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 23, 2017

Decided: May 26, 2017

Julius Adair Wiley, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Jane Hairston, Robert Michael Hamilton, Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Julius Adair Wiley appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, construing his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for a sentence reduction as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, and dismissing that motion as second or successive. Although the district court should not have construed Wiley’s motion as one arising under § 2255, we nevertheless agree with the court’s alternative reasoning that Wiley is not entitled to relief under § 3582(c)(2) because the Sentencing Commission has not authorized ’ resentencing under Amendment 794 to the Sentencing Guidelines. *See*U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10(a)(1), (d) (2016); *United States v. McHan,*386 F.3d 620, 622 (4th Cir. 2004). We therefore affirm the denial of relief on that basis. 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*
B.Z.D., a child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-5057

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 30, 2018

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Justin Karpf, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Heather Ross, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED .

Wolf, Bilbrey, and Kelsey, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FOR THE THREE MONTH PERIOD ENDING MARCH 31, 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          25,664
<SECURITIES>                                    55,489
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                81,404
<PP&E>                                           5,143
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,112
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  83,747
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,365
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           221
<OTHER-SE>                                      72,192
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    83,747
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   438
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,116
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  67
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,642)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,642)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.35)<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.35)
<FN>
<F1>For Purposes of this Exhibit Primary means Basic.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>