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

<ARTICLE>                     9
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         42,161
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         88,636
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               23,510
<TRADING-ASSETS>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    17,048
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         47,983
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           47,998
<LOANS>                                        499,770
<ALLOWANCE>                                    9,511
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 747,282
<DEPOSITS>                                     669,957
<SHORT-TERM>                                   4,412
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            7,448
<LONG-TERM>                                    0 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       99
<OTHER-SE>                                     65,366
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 747,282
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                22,381
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              2,085
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               2,719
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               27,185
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             7,868
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             7,928
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          19,257
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  80
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                16,749
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                7,477
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     7,477
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   4,660
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .46
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .46
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                 5.93
<LOANS-NON>                                    10,498
<LOANS-PAST>                                   0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                               1,021
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               9,826
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  576
<RECOVERIES>                                   181
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              9,511
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           9,511
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                            0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        0
        

</TABLE>
Marilou ADKINS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Jon G. TURNER, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-1418

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 16, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

This appeal is dismissed because of the appellant's failure to satisfy this court's April 13, 2018, fee order.

KELLY, MORRIS, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

PR 23-0005 

MAY 16 2023 

IN RE PETITION OF LEIGH FRATTOLILLIO 

FOR TEMPORARY ADMISSION TO THE BAR 

OF THE STATE OF MONTANA. 

Bowen Gr,-,enwood 

Clerk of Supreme Court 

State of Montana 

ORDER 

Leigh Frattolillio has petitioned for temporary admission to the practice of law in 

Montana pending admission upon examination. Frattolillio passed the Montana Bar 

Examination in February 2023, and is scheduled to take the Multistate Professional 

Responsibility Examination (MPRE) in August 2023. Frattolillio has undertaken 

employment with the Gallatin County Attorney's Office but is not yet acting as counsel of 

record. The Gallatin County Attorney has filed a letter in support of the petition, citing a 

backlog of cases and the critical assistance Frattolillio can provide to that office as counsel. 

While we routinely deny petitions for temporary admission for applicants seeking 

admission by motion or upon transfer of Uniform Bar Examination (UBE) score, see 

Petition of Gosch, 07-0303, March 7, 2016, we have explained that "[t]emporary admission 

until sitting for the bar exam may be appropriate in circumstances where a candidate does 

not qualify for admission on motion or for transfer of a UBE score." Petition of Gosch, 

07-0303. Here, Frattolillio is waiting to complete the* examination process, and thus 

qualifies for temporary admission.' Good cause appearing, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for temporary admission to the practice 

of law is GRANTED. This period of temporary admission shall be effective until 

Frattolillio is permanently admitted to the practice of law, or until October 1, 2023, 

I We would also note that the Court routinely grants a waiver of the requirement to take and pass 

the MPRE within three years of admission for applicants who have previously taken the 

examination and have a good ethical history. Rule VII(A), Rules for Admission to the Bar of 

Montana. Frattolillio took the MPRE in 1998. 

05/17/2023

Case Number: PR 07-0303
whichever is sooner, at which time the temporary admission will expire. During the period 

of temporary admission, Frattolillio must be employed with the Gallatin County Attorney's 

Office, Bozeman, Montana, and termination of that employment will terminate 

Frattolillio's temporary admission. The Gallatin County Attorney's Office will notify the 

Court if Frattolillio ceases to be employed by that office. 

The Clerk of this Court will administer the usual oath and issue a temporary 

certificate granting Leigh Frattolillio permission to practice law until permanently 

admitted, or until October 1, 2023, whichever is sooner. 

The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this order to Petitioner and to the State 

Bar of Montana. 

DATED this 11) day of May, 2023. 

Chief Justice 

c 

ecli AI Zit, 

Justices
Lynn Marie HODGSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-2047

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 9, 2018

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Matthew J. Salvia, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Cornelius C. Demps, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CASANUEVA, BLACK, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
#### Frederick SELLERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-6248

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 20, 2017

Decided: June 23, 2017

Frederick Sellers, Appellant Pro Se.

Erin Carter Tison, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Frederick Sellers appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Sellers’ motion to appoint counsel and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Sellers v. United States,*No. 2:15-cv-00079-JPB-RWT, 2017 WL 634514 (N.D. W. Va., Feb. 16, 2017). However, because the district court, which lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over Sellers’ complaint, dismissed Sellers’ unnecessary surgery claim with prejudice, we vacate this portion of the judgment and remand the case with instructions to dismiss the claim without prejudice. *See S. Walk at Broadlands Homeowner’s Ass’n v. OpenBand at Broadlands, LLC,*713 F.3d 175, 185 (4th Cir. 2013) (explaining that dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction must be without prejudice); *see also Robb v. United States,*80 F.3d 884, 887 n.2 (4th Cir. 1996) (finding dismissal under independent contractor exception is dismissal for want of subject-matter jurisdiction).

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade*133quately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS*
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas Lee BRINCEFIELD, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-6777

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 17, 2016

Decided: November 22, 2016

Thomas Brincefield, Appellant Pro Se. John Mcrae Alsup, Robert Michael Hamilton, Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit,

PER CURIAM:

Thomas Lee Brincefield appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting in part and denying in part his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended that the motion be granted in part and denied in part and advised Brincefield that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Brincefield has waived appellate review by failing to file timely objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

Wé 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
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**


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 accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of M~Wave,
      Inc.
      for the three months ended June 30, 2007, I, Jeff Figlewicz, Chief Financial
      Officer of M~Wave, Inc. do hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
      as
      adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that:





(1)
      such
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the three months ended June 30, 2007, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the three
      months ended June 30, 2007, fairly presents, in all material respects, the
      financial condition and results of operations of M~Wave, Inc.











Dated:  October
                  22, 2007
              /s/  Jeff
                  FiglewiczJeff
                  FiglewiczChief
                  Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.2

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 September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Rick P. Frier, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer 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/ Rick P. Frier                           
|Rick P. Frier                               
|Executive Vice President and                
|Chief Financial Officer                     
|(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
|November 8, 2006
118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6116 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 14280 South Military Trail in Delray Beach, 

Florida, as the ‘‘Benjamin Berell Ferencz Post Office 

Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 6116 EH

1 SECTION 1. BENJAMIN BERELL FERENCZ POST OFFICE 

2 BUILDING. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

4 Postal Service located at 14280 South Military Trail in 

5 Delray Beach, Florida, shall be known and designated as 

6 the ‘‘Benjamin Berell Ferencz Post Office Building’’. 

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg8 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

9 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

10 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Benjamin Berell 

11 Ferencz Post Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives December 4, 

2024. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6116 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostBerell Ferencz Post Office Building’’. in Delray Beach, Florida, as the ‘‘Benjamin al Service located at 14280 South Military Trail
ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. Kenneth Mark GREGORSKI, et al., Respondents.

No. 3D18-508

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed July 5, 2018

Cooney Trybus Kwavnick Peets, and Warren Kwavnick (Fort Lauderdale), for petitioner.

Kenneth Gregorski, pro se, respondent.

Before SUAREZ, SALTER and FERNANDEZ, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Ace American Insurance Company ("Insurer") seeks a writ of certiorari quashing a circuit court order denying the Insurer's motion to dismiss the respondent's, Mr. Gregorski's, complaint for declaratory relief. The petition and appendix established that Mr. Gregorski's complaint for third-party coverage failed to comply with the non-joinder provisions of section 627.4136, Florida Statutes (2017).

Mr. Gregorski's counsel in the circuit court proceeding did not appear in response to the petition, nor did Mr. Gregorski himself file a response. Finding the petition well taken, we grant it and quash the order denying the Insurer's motion to dismiss. *Lantana Ins., Ltd. v. Thornton*, 118 So.3d 250 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013). *See also**GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. v. Martinez*, 240 So.3d 43 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018).

Petition granted, order quashed.
Ayumi YAMASHITA, Appellant, v. Jared SUGERMAN, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-5047

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 23, 2018.

John Elias of Law Offices of John Elias, Pembroke Pines, for Appellant.

Toni A. Butler of Alderuccio & Butler, LLC, Naples, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

KELLY, MORRIS, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Joe Lee FOARD, Jr., Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-10037 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed October 24, 2017

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

Joe Lee Foard, Jr., Pro Se

Before KING, OWEN, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges,

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Joe Lee Foard, Jr., 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 (5th Cir. 2011). Foard 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.
#### Miguel Angel De LOERA-GARCIA, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 15-73801

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted August 9, 2017 ***

Filed August 14, 2017

Omar Nakib, Attorney, Law Office of Stephen Coghlan, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner

' Anna E. Juarez, 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: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Miguel Angel De Loera-Garcia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review *250of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his mption to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo questions of law, including claims of due process violations due to ineffective assistance. *Mohammed v. Gonzales,*400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Loera-Garcia’s motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel, where Loera-Garcia failed to establish prejudice resulting from his prior attorney’s alleged ineffective assistance. *See id.*at 793-94 (to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a petitioner must demonstrate that counsel’s performance may have affected the outcome of the proceedings).

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary decision not to reopen proceedings sua sponte, and Loera-Garcia does not raise a claim of error underlying the sua sponte determination that would invoke our jurisdiction. *See Bonilla v. Lynch,*840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016).

In light of this disposition, we do not reach Loera-Garcia’s remaining contentions regarding whether prior counsel erred, and the necessity of complying with the requirements of *Matter of Lozada,*19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988). *See Simeonov v. Ashcroft,*371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they reach).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid*250ed by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Order entered November 15, 2018

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-00183-CV

AZTEC SYSTEMS, INC. AND GLENDON TODD CAPITAL, LLC, Appellants

V.

NICK PREVETT, Appellee

On Appeal from the 44th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-15-13630

ORDER

On the Court’s own motion, we REMOVE this appeal from submission on December 5, 

2018. The appeal will be resubmitted in the first quarter of 2019.

/s/ MOLLY FRANCIS 

PRESIDING JUSTICE
#### Paul Cleveland THOMPSON, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Director, VDOC; David B. Everett, Regional Operations Chief, VDOC Eastern Region; Commonwealth of Virginia; The Geo Group, Incorporated, Contractor with VDOC to operate and manage LVCC employees and staff to provide medical care to plaintiff; E. Wright, Warden at LVCC; Shaw, Assistant Warden at LVCC (female); Shaw, Assistant Warden at LVCC (male); Fant, Unit Manager of Building #50 and the Therapeutic Community Program of Addictions Treatment; Davis, Unit Manager for Building #70; Graves, Unit Manager of Segregation; Boone, Supervisor of Segregation; Goode, Health Services Administrator of the LVCC Medical Department; Kelly, Law Library at LVCC; Nurse Lucy, Nurse; Unknown Medical Staff To Be Named Later, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-6504

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: September 28, 2017

Decided: October 27, 2017

Paul Cleveland Thompson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Jessica Leigh Berdichevsky, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*268PER CURIAM:

Paul Cleveland Thompson, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no re-' versible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Thompson v. Clarke,*No. 2:14-cv-00086-RBS-DEM (E.D. Va. Mar. 9, 2017). 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*
Constance Persico BURCAR, as trustee of the William B. Persico Revocable Trust, and as attorney-in-fact for William B. Persico pursuant to DPA dated October 31, 2011, Appellant, v. Bill FURST, as Property Appraiser of Sarasota County; Barbara Ford Coates, as Tax Collector of Sarasota County; and Leon M. Biegalski, as Executive Director of the Department of Revenue, Appellees.

Case No. 2D17-3316

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 11, 2018

John W. Chapman, Jr., of The John Chapman Law Firm, P.A., Sarasota, for Appellant.

Jason A. Lessinger and J. Geoffrey Pflugner of Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen & Ginsburg, P.A., Sarasota, for Appellee Bill Furst.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Robert P. Elson, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee Leon M. Biegalski.

No appearance for Appellee Barbara Ford Coates.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

VILLANTI, MORRIS, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
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 Annual Report of Golden Health Holdings, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-KSB/A3 for the period ended September 30, 2005 filed with
        the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), we, Kam Lau, Chief
        Executive Officer of the Company, and Shit Yin Wong, Chief Financial 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) 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 consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the dates presented
      and the consolidated result of operations of the Company for the periods
      presented.











Kam
        Lau


Chief
      Executive Officer


March
        12,
        2007











Shit
        Yin
        Wong


Chief
      Financial Officer


March
        12,
        2007