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

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         152,004
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          13,931
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                70,529
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    103,971
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                      1,764,509
<ALLOWANCE>                                     23,663
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,414,627
<DEPOSITS>                                   1,514,805
<SHORT-TERM>                                   139,253
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            127,328
<LONG-TERM>                                    289,835
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       142,168
<OTHER-SE>                                     204,060
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               2,414,627
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 97,416
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               10,438
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 3,662
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               111,516
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              38,198
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              56,701
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           54,815
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    7,300
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   6
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 49,929
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 49,597
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      29,162
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    29,162
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .75
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .71
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                       0
<LOANS-NON>                                     63,890
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                26,954
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   11,881
<RECOVERIES>                                     1,290
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               23,663
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            23,663
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0



</TABLE>
SAT Report

PMN Number: P-09-0199

SAT Date: 2/13/2009

Print Date: 3/7/2013

Related cases: Yes

Concern levels:

Type of Concern: Health Eco Comments

Level of Concern: 2 1

 Persistence Bioaccum Toxicity Comments

3 U2

Exposure Based Review:

Health: No

Ecotox: No

Routes of exposure: Health: Inhalation, dermal, drinking water

Ecotox: No releases to water

Fate: ;

Keywords:

 Keywords: IRR-E,S,MM

LUNG

IMMUNO

ONCO

Summary of Assessment:

 Fate:

Fate Summary: P-09-0198-99

FATE: 

Solid 

S < 0.001 mg/L at 25 EC (E)

VP < 1.0E-6 torr at 25 EC (E)

BP > 400 EC (E)

H < 1.00E-8 (E)
POTW removal (%) = U via U

Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg = U

Sorption to soils/sediments = U

PBT Potential: P3BU

*CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = U

 Health:

 Health Summary: Expect poor absorption via all routes (analog). Concern 

for irritation to eye, skin, and mucous membranes (including respiratory tract) based on analogs. 

Concern for lung overload for a poorly soluble particulate, and for lung effects, based on 

submitted test data. Possible concern for immunotoxicity and oncogenicity, based on analogs.

 Test Data: Submitted with 

Five-day rat inhalation study NOAEC 0.1 mg/m3, with increased protein concentrations, enzyme 

activity, cytokine and chemokine concentrations, and lymphocyte counts, observed to the end of 

the 28-day recovery period. In the lung, increased cytokine and chemokine concentrations, 

organ weights, and numbers of macrophages, and granulomatous inflammation.

Submitted with 

Pulmonary bioassay screening study in rats (intratracheal instillation): 15% mortality within 12 

hours at 1.5 mg/kg, suffocation at 5 mg/kg, with transient pulmonary inflammatory response 

after 24 hours, and presence of multifocal granulomas.

 Ecotox:

Test Organism Test 

Type

Test End 

Point

Predicted Measured Comments

fish 96-h LC50 *

daphnid 48-h LC50 *

green algal 96-h EC50 *

fish _ chronic value *

daphnid _ chronic 

value

*

algal _ chronic 

value

*

Sewage Sludge 3-h EC50 _

Sewage Sludge _ Chronic 

Value

_

Ecotox Values Comments: Predictions are based on SARs for neutral organic chemicals; 

SAR chemical class = ; MW>1,000,000; solid; log 

Kow >> 10 (P); S = negligible; pH7; effective concentrations based on 100% active 

ingredients and nominal concentrations; DW hardness < 150.0 mg/L as CaCO3; and DW TOC 

<2.0 mg/L;
Factors Values Comments

Assessment Factor 10

Concentration of Concern 

(ppb)

*

SARs neutral organic compounds

SAR Class

Ecotox Category 

Ecotox Factors Comments: 

 SAT Chair: L Keifer 564-8916
STATE of Louisiana v. Fahim A. SHAIKH

No. 2017-K-2178

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 15, 2018

**ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE THIRD CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEAL, PARISH OF BEAUREGARD**

PER CURIAM:

*111Writ granted. In its ruling finding the sentence for indecent behavior with a juvenile excessive, the court of appeal did not find the sentence to be grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offense. *See generally**State v. Bonanno* , 384 So.2d 355, 357 (La. 1980). It only found that the sentence equaled or exceeded sentences imposed in other cases that it found to present more severe facts. It provided no other reason for vacating the sentence, and this comparison alone does not demonstrate a manifest abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court. Moreover, it is important to note that while defendant received the maximum sentence, the trial court suspended over 40% of that sentence and ordered it to run concurrently with the sentence for defendant's simple kidnapping conviction. Thus, defendant will likely serve far less than the seven years imposed. Under the circumstances, defendant failed to show that the trial court abused its broad discretion in sentencing. Therefore, the judgment of the court of appeal is reversed, and defendant's sentence for indecent behavior with a juvenile is reinstated.

**REVERSED**

Hughes, J., would deny.
#### Estuardo Antonio PEREZ-ALDANA, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 14-71347

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted November 16, 2016 *

Filed November 21, 2016

Roxana V. Muro, Attorney, Law Offices of Roxana V. Muro, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner

Jeffery R. Leist, Trial Attorney, Sabati-no F. Leo, Trial Attorney, OIL, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Estuardo Antonio Perez-AIdana, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. *Zehatye v. Gonzales,*453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.

The record does not compel the conclusion that Perez-AIdana established extraordinary circumstances to excuse his untimely-filed asylum application. *See 8*C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(5). Thus, we deny the petition for review as to Perez-Aldana’s asylum claim.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Perez-AIdana failed to establish past persecution or a likelihood of future persecution on account of an enumerated ground. *See Parussimova v. Mukasey,*555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2009) (the REAL ID Act “requires that a protected ground represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum applicant’s persecution”). Thus, Perez-Aldana’s withholding of removal claim fails.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Sergio MALTOS-ESTRADA, Defendant-Appellant

No. 15-51236 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Date Filed: 11/23/2016

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Sergio Maltos-Estrada, Pro Se

*872Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Sergio Maltos-Estrada has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (6th Cir. 2011). Maltos-Estrada has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determined th a t

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 97-31274

Summary Calendar

ALONZO MOORE, JR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

PROVIDENT LIFE & ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY;

SUPERIOR STEEL, INC. GROUP LONG-TERM DISABILITY

PLAN, AN EMPLOYEE WELFARE BENEFIT PLAN,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

(97-CV-89)

September 3, 1998

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Alonzo Moore, Jr. ("Moor e") was employed by Superior Steel,

Inc. ("Superior") as a welder. Superior contracted with Provident

Life and Accident Insurance Company ("Provident") to provide short

and long-term disability plans for its employees. These Plans were

issued in accordance with the Employment Retirement Income Security2

Act (ERISA) and Provident was the Administrator and C laims

Fiduciary under the terms of the Plan. These Plans expressly

provide that the Administra tor and Claims Fiduciary would have

"full, exclusive and discretionary authority to control, manage and

administer cl aims and to interpret and resolve all questions

arising out of the administration, interpretation and application"

of the Plan. In April 1995, Moore suffered a hernia and applied

for and received short-term benefits which commenced on or about

June 7, 1995. In November 1995, Moore filed claim a for a longterm disability benefits and this claim was approved by Provident

and he received approximately $1, 060 per month through May 1996.

Based on periodic medical report s, Provident terminated Moore’s

long-term benefits effective May 31, 1996. Moore appealed his

termination to the Review Committee under the terms of the Plan

which affirmed the decision to terminate the long -term benefits.

In January 1997, Moore sued Provident in Louisiana state district

court alleging that Providen t had wrongfully terminated Moore’s

benefits. Provident removed the case to the federal district court

and filed a motion for summary judgment. The federal district

court granted summary judgment and Moore appeals.

We have carefully reviewed the briefs, the record excerpts and

relevant portions of the record itself. For the reasons stated by

the district court in its ruling on motion for summary judgment

filed under date of October 24, 1997, we AFFIRM the final judgment

entered on that same date.

AFFIRMED.
----

|   | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

| /s/ Ronald H. Butler                       |   |
|--------------------------------------------|--------|
| Ronald H. Butler                           |   |
| Chairman and Chief Executive Officer       |   |
| November 16, 2010                          |   |
|                                       |   |
| /s/ James M. La Neve                       |   |
| James M. La Neve                           |   |
| Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |   |
| November 16, 2010                          |   |

----
Hosston Cole BISHOP, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D16-2724

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed March 13, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.1



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 Catalina Marketing Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, L. Dick Buell, Chief Executive Officer and Director of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                                          
|------------------------------------------
|/s/ L. Dick Buell                         
|L. Dick Buell                             
|Chief Executive Officer                   
|and Director (Principal Executive Officer)

August 8, 2005
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-17-0000248 23-MAY-2018 08:09 AM
#### Laurence Elena MARAVILLA; William Enrique Castro-Maravilla, Petitioners, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent,

No. 16-1370

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: August 11, 2017

Filed: August 16, 2017

Michael E. Ward, Ambrea Watts, Alston *&*Bird, Washington, DC, for Petitioners

Karen Yolanda Drummond, Barbara Joan Leen, Carl H. McIntyre, Anthony Cardozo Payne, Assistant Director, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Raya Jarawan, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litiga*180tion, Washington, DC, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Before COLLOTON, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Salvadoran citizens Laurence Elena Ma-ravilla and her minor son, William Enrique Castro-Maravilla (William) petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (IJ’s) decision. Petitioners challenge the denial of Maravilla’s requests for asylum and withholding of removal, based on her membership in certain particular social groups, and they challenge the IJ’s denial of both Maravilla’s and William’s requests for relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).1 Petitioners contend (1) the agency erroneously concluded that Maravilla did not show one central reason members of a gang targeted her for extortion was because she was the mother of a boy the gang members sought to recruit; (2) the BIA engaged in impermissible fact-finding when it discussed the IJ’s findings; and (3) the agency disregarded significant evidence when it concluded that petitioners failed to show it was more likely than not that a public official would consent or acquiesce to their torture. We determine that the BIA’s discussion did not reflect impermissible fact-finding, and we conclude that substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of relief. *See Fesehaye v. Holder,*607 F.3d 523, 526 (8th Cir. 2010).

First, we conclude that Maravilla failed to establish that her membership in any of her proposed groups was at least one central reason for the extortion she experienced and the future harm she fears. *See Matter of*L-E-A-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 40, 43-46 (BIA 2017) (interpreting “one central reason” test for nexus in asylum); *cf. Cambara-Cambara v. Lynch,*837 F.3d 822, 826 (8th Cir. 2016) (affirming denial based on lack of nexus between harm and status as family members). Because Maravilla did not meet her burden of proof for asylum, she necessarily could not satisfy withholding of removal’s higher standard. *See Ngugi v. Lynch,*826 F.3d 1132, 1139 (8th Cir. 2016). Finally, as to petitioners’ CAT claim, we agree there was insufficient evidence that the government would torture them or acquiesce in any torture. *See Cambara-Cambara,*837 F.3d at 826-27. The petition for review is denied. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. Petitioners' brief makes no arguments regarding William’s asylum and withholding-of removal claims; thus, they are abandoned. *See Chay-Velasquez v. Ashcroft,*367 F.3d 751, 756 (8th Cir. 2004).
Exhibit





Exhibit 10.9





SUMMARY OF NON-MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR COMPENSATION
As of January 1, 2019
	
					
	Function
	 
	Amount Paid
	 
	Form of Payment

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Annual Stock Retainer
	 
	$85,000 annually
	 
	Payable in quarterly increments in shares of company common stock at its fair market value

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Annual Cash Retainer
	 
	$60,000 annually
	 
	Payable in cash in quarterly increments

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Audit Committee Members Meeting Fee
	 
	$15,000 annually
	 
	Payable in cash in quarterly increments

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Audit Committee Chair Meeting Fee
	 
	$30,000 annually
	 
	Payable in cash in quarterly increments

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Compensation Committee Members Meeting Fee
	 
	$10,000 annually
	 
	Payable in cash in quarterly increments

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Compensation Committee Chair Meeting Fee
	 
	$20,000 annually
	 
	Payable in cash in quarterly increments

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Nominating & Governance Committee Members Meeting Fee
	 
	$10,000 annually
	 
	Payable in cash in quarterly increments

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Nominating & Governance Committee Chair Meeting Fee
	 
	$15,000 annually
	 
	Payable in cash in quarterly increments

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Independent Chairman of the Board
	 
	$75,000 annually
	 
	Payable in cash in quarterly increments
#### Michael A. BRUZZONE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INTEL CORPORATION; Arm, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 14-17003

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted November 16, 2016 *

Filed November 21, 2016

Michael A. Bruzzone, Pro Se, Richmond, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

William Faulkner, Mcmanis Faulkner, San Jose, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Intel Corporation.

*932Brian Michael Affrunti, William Faulkner, Mcmanis Faulkner, San Jose, CA, Amy Eileen Hoyt, Burke Williams & Sor-ensen, LLP, Riverside, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Arm, Inc.

Before: LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Michael A. Bruzzone appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his action alleging a conspiracy to defraud the federal and state governments and the public. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *Stoner v. Santa Clara Cty. Office of Educ.,*502 F.3d 1116, 1120-21 (9th Cir. 2007), and we affirm.

The district court properly struck Bruz-zone’s complaint and dismissed the action because Bruzzone improperly attempted to proceed pro se as a relator in a qui tam action alleging a conspiracy to defraud the United States. *See id.*at 1125-27 (concluding that pro se litigants may not prosecute claims based on fraud against the Unites States).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Bruzzone’s recusal motion because Bruzzone’s allegations of bias were exclusively based on adverse judicial rulings. *See Jorgensen v. Cassiday,*320 F.3d 906, 911 (9th Cir. 2003) (setting forth standard of review); *see also Liteky v. United States,*510 U.S. 540, 555, 114 S.Ct. 1147, 127 L.Ed.2d 474 (1994) (explaining that “judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion”).

Defendants’ unopposed motion for judicial notice, filed February 20, 2015, is granted.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Sean James KOEHLER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-4062

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed July 6, 2018

John P. Guidry, II, of the Law Firm of John Guidry, P.A., Orlando, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Robin A. Compton, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

*1302We reverse in part the summary denial of Appellant's Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion. Appellant challenges the summary denial of Ground One of his motion in which he claimed that counsel misadvised him about eligibility for youthful offender sentencing, causing him to reject a plea offer. The allegations are insufficient in that Appellant did not allege all of the *Alcorn*1 factors. Nevertheless, Appellant should be given an opportunity to amend. *See**Charles v. State* , 193 So.3d 46, 47 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016).

The trial court also erred in summarily denying that portion of Ground Five in which Appellant alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object to the court's failure to give him credit for time served in jail in North Carolina on the Florida offenses. This claim is cognizable in this proceeding. *See**Bonilla v. State* , 110 So.3d 492, 492 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (holding that claim seeking out-of-state jail credit may be raised on direct appeal or in rule 3.850 motion). Because Appellant was not required to provide proof of his allegations at this stage, his failure to prove entitlement to the out-of-state credit does not support summary denial. Accordingly, an evidentiary hearing on this portion of Ground Five is necessary unless other records refute the claim.

In all other respects, we affirm.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.

TORPY, BERGER and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.

1

*Alcorn v. State* , 121 So.3d 419, 422 (Fla. 2013).
Linda JACKSON v. BIRMINGHAM AIRPORT AUTHORITY

2160569

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

June 15, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.