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




<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000925252
<NAME> SIGNATURE BRANDS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-30-1997
<CASH>                                           2,017
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   46,814
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     40,479
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                95,311
<PP&E>                                          16,308
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 255,252
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           40,621
<BONDS>                                        159,900
<COMMON>                                            10
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,563
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   255,252
<SALES>                                        149,061
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               149,061
<CGS>                                          103,389
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  139,202
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (248)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,557
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    550
<INCOME-TAX>                                       326
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                224
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       224
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            9
<LEGEND>
         This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated  balance  sheets  and the  statements  of  income  of  Wake  Forest
Bancshares, Inc. and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                             674
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           5,827
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      3,528
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                             280
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                               280
<LOANS>                                         61,467
<ALLOWANCE>                                        263
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  72,396
<DEPOSITS>                                      57,654
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                531
<LONG-TERM>                                        206
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            12
<OTHER-SE>                                      13,456
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  72,396
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  5,476
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  171
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   557
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 6,204
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               3,007
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,027
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            3,177
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  1,275
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,944
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,944
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,203
<EPS-BASIC>                                     1.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.02
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.34
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                       294
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                    294
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   263
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  263
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            263


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Oscar Jose CORDOVA-AVELAR, also known as Oscar Cordova, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-41454 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed June 20, 2017

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Oscar Jose Cordova-Avelar, Pro Se

Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Oscar Jose Cordova-Avelar *169has 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). Cor-dova-Avelar 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 Cíe. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be *169published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Charles STOKES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-853

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[May 31, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### Melinda Gabriella VALENZUELA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Victor GAN, Doctor at Infirmary LBJ; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-16841

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 14, 2017 *

Filed February 28, 2017

Melinda Gabriella Valenzuela, Pro Se

Sherle Flaggman, Esquire, Senior Counsel, Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Division of County Counsel, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees

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

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Melinda Gabriella Valenzuela appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutionally inadequate *607medical care while she was a pretrial detainee. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Williams v. Paramo,*775 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Valenzuela failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Valenzuela exhausted her administrative remedies before filing her lawsuit. *See McKinney v. Carey,*311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1200 (9th Cir. 2002) (exhaustion must be completed before a § 1983 action is filed; exhaustion during the pendency of the litigation is insufficient because exhaustion is a precondition to suit); *see also Douglas v. Noelle,*567 F.3d 1103, 1104, 1106 (9th Cir. 2009) (§ 1983 complaint deemed filed at time prisoner delivers it to prison authorities for forwarding to court clerk). Contrary to Valenzuela’s contention, exhaustion of administrative remedies before filing an amended complaint alleging the same claims does not constitute proper exhaustion. *See Cano v. Taylor,*739 F.3d 1214, 1220-21 (9th Cir. 2014) (explaining exception to exhaustion during pen-dency of action where new claims are alleged in amended complaint). Because we affirm the district court’s summary judgment based on failure to exhaust adminis-I trative remedies, we treat the judgment as a dismissal without prejudice. *See Lira v. Herrera,*427 F.3d 1164, 1170 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[A] district court must dismiss a case without prejudice when there is no *presuit*exhaustion, even if there is exhaustion while suit is pending.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

Because we affirm based on failure to exhaust, we do not reach the merits of Valenzuela’s claim.

Valenzuela’s motion to supplement the record, filed on August 30, 2016, is denied as unnecessary.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### James Harrell BROWN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Nora HUNT, Superintendent; Frank L. Perry, Secretary, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 17-6321

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 27, 2017

Decided: August 4, 2017

James Harrell Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appel-lee.

Before DUNCAN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

James Harrell Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Brown has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny his motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the *202facts and legal contentions are adequately-presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
Robert L. THOMAS, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE O/B/O Angela Y. THOMAS, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3003

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 15, 2018

Robert L. Thomas, Maitland, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Toni C Bernstein, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Child Support Enforcement, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

TORPY, EVANDER and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 60 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 H. R. 60

   To require the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to 
report to the Congress semiannually on the number of firearms transfers 
  resulting from the failure to complete a background check within 3 
business days, and the procedures followed after it is discovered that 
 a firearm transfer has been made to a transferee who is ineligible to 
                           receive a firearm.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 9, 2023

 Ms. Jackson Lee introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                     the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To require the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to 
report to the Congress semiannually on the number of firearms transfers 
  resulting from the failure to complete a background check within 3 
business days, and the procedures followed after it is discovered that 
 a firearm transfer has been made to a transferee who is ineligible to 
                           receive a firearm.

    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 ``Accidental Firearms Transfers 
Reporting Act of 2023''.

SEC. 2. FBI REPORT ON FIREARMS TRANSFERS RESULTING FROM THE FAILURE TO 
              COMPLETE A BACKGROUND CHECK WITHIN 3 BUSINESS DAYS, AND 
              THE PROCEDURES FOLLOWED AFTER IT IS DISCOVERED THAT A 
              FIREARM TRANSFER HAS BEEN MADE TO A TRANSFEREE WHO IS 
              INELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE A FIREARM.

    Within 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act and 
every 6 months thereafter, the Director of the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation shall submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the 
House of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the 
Senate a written report on--
            (1) the number of proposed firearm transfers--
                    (A) about which a person licensed under chapter 44 
                of title 18, United States Code, contacted the national 
                instant criminal background check system established 
                under section 103 of the Brady Handgun Violence 
                Prevention Act;
                    (B) with respect to which the system failed to 
                respond to the licensee within 3 business days; and
                    (C) which were completed in the period covered by 
                the report; and
            (2) the procedures followed after it is discovered that a 
        firearm transfer has been made to a transferee who is 
        ineligible to receive a firearm.
                                 <all>
```
EX PARTE Jerome GREER

CR-16-0516

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

May 15, 2017 Reh. denied June 21, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Habeas corpus pet. dismissed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Manuel RODRIGUEZ-SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-41362 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed June 20, 2017

*143Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Manuel Rodriguez-Sanchez, Pro Se

Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges..

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Manuel Rodriguez-Sanchez 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). Rodriguez-Sanchez 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.
#### Corey MOODY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Danielle HOLLANDSWORTH, individually; Randy Gibson, individually, Defendants-Appellees, and The City of Newport News, Virginia; James D. Fox, in his official capacity; Richard W. Myers, in his official capacity; Russel Tinsley, individually; Ryan Norris, individually, Defendants.

No. 16-1814

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Argued: May 11, 2017

Decided: May 30, 2017

ARGUED: Timothy Gerard Clancy, CLANCY & WALTER, PLLC, Hampton, Virginia, for Appellant. James Arthur Ca-les, III, FURNISS, DAVIS, RASHKIND AND SAUNDERS, P.C., Norfolk, Virginia; Jeff W. Rosen, PENDER & COWARD, P.C., Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Michael B. Ware, Adrienne M. Sakyi, SCHEMPF *&*WARE, PLLC, Yorktown, Virginia, for Appellant. Lisa Ehrich, PENDER & COWARD, P.C., Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellee Danielle Hollandsworth. Alan Brody Rashkind, FURNISS, DAVIS, RASHKIND AND SAUNDERS, P.C., Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee Randy Gibson.

Before WILKINSON, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Corey Moody appeals from the district court’s awards of summary judgment to police officers Danielle Hollandsworth and Randy Gibson, in their individual capacities, in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil action. *See Moody v. City of Newport News,*193 F.Supp.3d 530 (E.D. Va. 2016) (the “Opinion”). Moody was severely injured by gunshot wounds suffered on December 12, 2012, during a traffic stop and arrest in Newport News, Virginia. The district court rejected Moody’s excessive force claims against Hollandsworth and Gibson, and ruled that both officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

*141We have carefully assessed the arguments made by the parties in their briefs and at oral argument. We have also fully evaluated the record on appeal. Having done so, we are satisfied to adopt the reasoning and analysis of the district court and to affirm on the basis of the court’s comprehensive and well-crafted Opinion.

*AFFIRMED*
William Markese EDMOND, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-169

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 8, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
#### IN RE: Larry D. HILL, Jr., Petitioner.

No. 17-1454

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 23, 2017

Decided: May 26, 2017

Larry D. Hill, Jr., Petitioner Pro Se.

Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Larry D. Hill, Jr., petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court has unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and other related motions. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. We find the present record does not reveal undue delay in the district court. Accordingly, we *114grant Hill leave to proceed in forma pau-peris and deny the petition. 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.

*PETITION DENIED*
#### Verla WILEY, Appellant v. Robert Leon WILKINS, in his Official and Individual capacity as a U.S. District Court Judge, Appellee

No. 15-5347

September Term, 2015

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Filed: 05/24/2016

Rehearing En Banc Denied July 14, 2016.

BEFORE: Tatel and Pillard, Circuit Judges; Ginsburg, Senior Circuit Judge

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief and appendix filed by appellant. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s orders filed September 29, 2015, and December 2, 2015, be affirmed. The district court properly concluded that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because it cannot review decisions made by another District Judge, and because appellant’s claims were patently frivolous. See *Hagans v. Lavine,*415 U.S. 528, 536-37, 94 S.Ct. 1372, 39 L.Ed.2d 577 (1974) (federal courts lack subject-matter jurisdiction to hear claims that are “constitutionally insubstantial,” such as claims that are “essentially fictitious, wholly insubstantial, obviously frivolous, [or] obviously without merit”) (internal quotations and citations omitted); see also *Stump v. Sparkman,*435 U.S. 349, 356, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978) (judges acting in their judicial capacity are immune from suit, even when such acts are alleged to be in excess of authority, malicious or corrupt); *Roth v. King,*449 F.3d 1272, 1286 (D.C. Cir. 2006). Further, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s motion for relief from judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3). See *Summers v. Howard, Univ.,*374 F.3d 118, 192 (D.C. Cir. 2004).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. *808See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.
Shane PARKER, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. CALIBER HOMES LOANS, INC., et al, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-4143

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

October 19, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
A.I. v. MADISON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2160319

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

June 13, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Transferred to Madison Cir. Ct. for trial de novo pursuant to Rule 28(D), Ala. R.Juv.P.