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

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                  1,000
<CASH>                                           4,606
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     19,560
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        110,229
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,611
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 138,453
<DEPOSITS>                                     122,441
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              4,124
<LONG-TERM>                                        173
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         6,039
<OTHER-SE>                                       5,676
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 138,453
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  2,687
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  285
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 2,972
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               1,250
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,298
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            1,674
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      111
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 (10)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  1,678
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    747
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         747
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       474
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .84
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .84
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    9.32
<LOANS-NON>                                        241
<LOANS-PAST>                                       202
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                    85
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                    648
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,544
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       54
<RECOVERIES>                                        10
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,611
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               855
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            756
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Charles HUNTER, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-11303 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed July 25, 2017

James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, Timothy W. Funnell, Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Leigh Warren Davis, Bedford, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Charles Hunter pleaded guilty to one count of aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and was sentenced to the statutory maximum sentence of 240 months of imprisonment and a three-year term of supervised release. On appeal, he contends that the district court procedurally erred by applying a two-level sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) for possession of a firearm, a two-level sentencing enhancement under § 2D1.1(b)(12) for maintaining a premises for the purpose of distributing methamphetamine, and a four-level sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a) for being an organizer or leader of drug trafficking activity involving five or more participants.

Hunter concedes that our review is for plain error. To prevail, he must show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights. *Puckett v. United States,*556 U.S. 129, 135, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009). If he makes such a showing, we have the discretion to correct the error but only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. *Id.*Relief under the fourth prong is not “automatic if the other three prongs are met.” *United States v. Escalante-Reyes,*689 F.3d 415, 425 (5th Cir. 2012) (en banc).

At a minimum, Hunter has failed to make an adequate showing as to the fourth prong. He contends that we should exercise our discretion to correct any clear or obvious error which affected his substantial rights because his retained trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance on a number of grounds. However, to credit this argument would first require us to *271conclude that counsel was ineffective. As a general rule, claims of ineffective assistance are not reviewed on direct appeal where, as here, those claims have not been presented to the district court. *United States v. Haese,*162 F.3d 359, 363 (5th Cir. 1998). Absent the ineffective assistance claims, he makes no other argument that he can satisfy the fourth prong of the plain error test. *See United States v. Scroggins,*599 F.3d 433, 447-48 (5th Cir. 2010) (a party who raises issues but fails to brief them adequately abandons them on appeal).

Accordingly, Hunter has not demonstrated that the district court committed reversible plain procedural error. *See Puckett,*556 U.S. at 135, 129 S.Ct. 1423.

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.
Leslie TRICHE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-4665

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 6, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jesus ALVAREZ, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-40474 Cons. w/ No. 15-41076 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Date Filed: 11/28/2016

*882Traci Lynne Kenner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Texas, Tyler, TX, Ernest Gonzalez, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Texas, Plano, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Jesus Alvarez, Pro Se

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Je-su's Alvarez has moved in these consolidated appeals 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 (5th Cir. 2011). Alvarez has filed a response.

Included in Alvarez’s response is a claim that trial counsel and appellate counsel were ineffective for failing to argue that the district court did not have jurisdiction over his criminal proceedings because Congress does not have the power under the Constitution to create federal crimes. We generally do not review claims of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal. *United States v. Isgar,*739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014). However, this is one of those “rare cases in which the record” permits us to “fairly evaluate the merits of the claim.” *Id.*(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Alvarez was convicted pursuant to the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841. The CSA was enacted pursuant to Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause. *See Gonzales v. Raich,*545 U.S. 1, 12-22, 125 S.Ct. 2195, 162 L.Ed.2d 1 (2005). Accordingly, Alvarez has not shown a nonfrivolous issue regarding whether his trial counsel or his appellate counsel- was ineffective for failing to challenge the district court’s jurisdiction over his criminal proceedings. *See Strickland v. Washington,*466 U.S. 668, 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Alvarez’s response. We concur yrith counsel’s assessment that the appeals present no nonfrivolous issue, for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2. Alvarez’s motion for transcripts and the appointment of new counsel is DENIED. *See United States v. Wagner,*158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir. 1998); *see also United States v. Ramos,*390 Fed.Appx. 425, 426 (5th Cir. 2010).

*

 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.
Frank Lewis CASAR, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3732

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 10, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Lidale R. KELLUM, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D16-2188

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 18, 2018

Henry Sims, Public Defender, Panama City, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

B.L. Thomas, C.J., and Rowe and Winsor, JJ., concur.

Per Curiam.

*540Lidale R. Kellum appeals the trial court's denial of his motion seeking postconviction relief based on newly discovered evidence. Because the evidence on which Kellum relied was discoverable at the time of his violation of probation hearing, the trial court properly denied the motion. *See**Rutherford v. State* , 926 So.2d 1100, 1107 (Fla. 2006) (holding that newly discovered evidence must be based on facts that were unknown to the trial court, appellant, and his counsel at the time of trial and that neither the appellant nor his counsel could have discovered the facts through the exercise of due diligence).

AFFIRMED.
- 1 - 

Alexander Van der Bellen 

Managing Director and 

Associate General Counsel 

Delta Air Lines, Inc. 

1212 New York Avenue NW 

Washington, DC 20005 

202.842.4184 

sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com 

January 19, 2010 

via email and regulations.gov 

Esta Rosenberg 

Chief, U.S. Air Carrier Licensing Division 

Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Re: Joint Application of Delta Air Lines, Inc., Pinnacle Airlines, Inc., and 

 KLM Royal Dutch Airlines for a Statement of Authorization 

 (U.S.-EU Codesharing) 

 Dockets DOT-OST-2004-19214 and DOT-OST-2003-15191 

 

Dear Ms. Rosenberg: 

This letter is to confirm that Delta has polled all carriers on the service list to the above 

referenced application and there are no objections. In these circumstances, Delta urges that 

the application be granted as soon as possible. 

 

 

Respectfully submitted, 

Alexander Van der Bellen 

cc: Thuy Cooper 

 Mike Orr, Airline Info
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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 annual Report of XZERES Corp (the “Company”)
on Form 10-K for the year ended February 28, 2011 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”),
I, Frank Greco, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



1.The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934; and



2.The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated
financial condition of the Company as of the dates presented and the consolidated result of operations of the Company for the periods
presented.



|By:    | /s/ Frank Greco                                                              
|------ | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Name:  | Frank Greco                                                                  
|Title: | Principal Executive Officer,
        Principal Financial Officer and Director
|Date:  | May 27, 2011                                                                 



This certification has been furnished solely pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
**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 Morton’s Restaurant Group, Inc. (“Morton’s”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended July 4, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Allen J. Bernstein, the Chief Executive Officer of Morton’s, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(i)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(ii)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Morton’s.

 

Date: August 17, 2004

 
|   | /s/  ALLEN J. BERNSTEIN  |   |
|--------|--------------------------|--------|
|   | Allen  J. Bernstein      |
|   | Chief  Executive Officer |

 

----
**Exhibit 99.1**

Certificate Pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as AdoptedPursuant 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 periodending September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Daniel D. Granger, President, Chief Executive Officer, Chairman of the Board 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 SecuritiesExchange 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/ DANIEL D. GRANGER  **Daniel D. Granger****President, Chief Executive Officer****Chairman of the Board and****Director (PrincipalExecutive Officer)****November 13, 2002**     |
#### IN RE: JEVIC HOLDING CORP., et al., Debtors Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors on behalf of the bankruptcy estates of Jevic Holding Corp., et al. v. CIT Group/Business Credit Inc., in its capacity as Agent; Sun Capital Partners, Inc.; Sun Capital Partners IV, LP; Sun Capital Partners Management IV, LLC Casimir Czyzewski; *167Melvin L. Myers; Jeffrey Oehlers; Arthur E. Perigard and Daniel C. Richards, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Appellants

No. 14-1465

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

May 9, 2017

Domenic E. Pacitti, Esq., Linda Richen-derfer, Esq., Michael W. Yurkewicz, Esq., Klehr Harrison Harvey Branzburg, Wilmington, DE, for Debtors-Appellees Jevic Transportation Inc., Creek Road Properties LLC

Craig Goldblatt, Esq., WilmerHale, Washington, DC, Christopher D. Loizides, Esq., Loizides, Wilmington,' DE, Jack A. Raisner, Esq,, Rene S. Roupinian, Esq., Outten & Golden, New York, NY, for Plaintiffs-Appellants

Robert J. Feinstein, Esq., Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones, New York, NY, Bruce Grohsgal, Esq., Widener University School of Law, Wilmington, DE, Kathleen P. Makowski, Esq., Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA James E. O’Neill, III, Esq., Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones, Wilmington, DE, for Defendant-Ap-pellee Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors

Robert J. Dehney, Esq;, Curtis S. Miller, Esq., Morris Nichols Arsht & Tunnell, Wilmington, DE, James P. Gillespie, Esq., Christopher Landau, Esq., Jason R. Parish, Esq., Kirkland & Ellis, Washington, DC, James A. Stempel, Esq., Kirkland & Ellis, Chicago, IL, for Defendants-Appel-lees Sun Capital Partners IV LP, Sun Capital Partners Inc., Sun Partners Management IV LLC

Benjamin Ackerly, Esq., Tyler P. Brown, Esq., Shannon E. Daily, Esq., Hunton & Williams, Richmond, VA, Stephen M. Miller, Esq., Eric J. Monzo, Esq., Morris James, Wilmington, DE, Richard P. Norton, Esq., Hunton & Williams, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellee CIT Group Business Credit Inc.

Wendy Cox, Esq., Office of United States Trustee, Washington, DC, P Matthew Sutko, Esq., United States Department of Justice, Executive Office for United States Trustees, Washington, DC, for Not Party — Amicus Curiae United States of America

Before: HARDIMAN, SCIRICA and BARRY, Circuit Judges

JUDGMENT ORDER

Thomas M. Hardiman, Circuit Judge

On March 22,- 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States reversed this Court’s opinion and judgment entered May 21, 2015 and remanded the matter to this Court for further proceedings. The Supreme Court’s mandate issued on April 24, 2017.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the opinion and judgment of this Court is hereby VACATED.

Upon consideration of the opinion of the Supreme Court, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware is hereby VACATED and the matter is REMANDED to the District Court with direction to VACATE the judgment of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware and *168REMAND the matter to the Bankruptcy Court for further proceedings.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eric RICHARDSON, a/k/a Father, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6636

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 27, 2017

Decided: August 1, 2017

Eric Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Clayton Hanlon,- Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Eric Richardson seeks to appeal the distinct court’s order denying his motion to recuse the district judge in his pending habeas proceedings. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,*337 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Richardson seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appeal-able- interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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*
Silberstein Ungar, PLLC CPAs and Business Advisors

Phone (248) 203-0080

Fax (248) 281-0940

30600 Telegraph Road, Suite 2175

Bingham Farms, MI 48025-4586

www.sucpas.com 

May 27, 2011** **

** **

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLICACCOUNTING FIRM**

Board of Directors

Xzeres Corp.

Wilsonville, Oregon

 

To Whom It May Concern:

 

Silberstein Ungar, PLLC hereby consents tothe use in the Form 10-K, Annual Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Act of 1934, filed by Xzeres Corp. (formerlyknown as Xzeres Wind Corp.) of our report dated March 26, 2011, relating to the financial statements of Xzeres Corp., a NevadaCorporation, as of and for the periods ending February 28, 2011 and 2010.

 

Sincerely,

 

/s/ Silberstein Ungar, PLLC

Silberstein Ungar, PLLC

Bingham Farms, Michigan
Exhibit 13.1

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

      Each of the  undersigned  hereby  certifies,  in  his/her  capacity  as an
officer  of  China  International  Enterprises  Inc.  (the  "Company"),  for the
purposes of 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350,  as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:

(1)   The Annual  Report of the  Company on Form 20-F for the fiscal  year ended
      December 31, 2005 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 this Annual Report fairly  presents,  in all
      material  respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations of
      the Company.

Date: June 16, 2006

/s/ Yuanqing Li
-------------------------------
By:    Yuanqing Li
Title: Chairman of the Board of
       Directors, President and Director

/s/ Dinghong Shen
-------------------------------
By:    Dinghong Shen
Title: Chief Financial Officer and
       Chief Accounting Officer

      A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906 has
been provided to China  International  Enterprises  Inc. and will be retained by
China  International  Enterprises  Inc.  and  furnished  to the  Securities  and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
DIRECT TECH DRILLING, LLC v. DANRIK CONSTRUCTION, INC., et al.

NO. 2018-C-0459

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 11, 2018

Denied.
Ned Levon HUGHES v. STATE

CR-16-0351

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

April 21, 2017 Reh. denied June 30, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
John Edward DAVIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D16-1364

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed March 6, 2018 Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied April 25, 2018

Mary Elizabeth Fitzgibbons, Orlando, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Douglas T Squire, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ORFINGER, EVANDER and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.
David CARPENTER, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-2364

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

NOVEMBER 30, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Transferring this petition to the Circuit Court in and for Miami-Dade County.