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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-27-1997
<CASH>                                              51
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   60,879
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     66,029
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               139,813
<PP&E>                                          59,343
<DEPRECIATION>                                  21,974
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 184,980
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          117,782
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            81
<OTHER-SE>                                      65,682
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   184,980
<SALES>                                        134,824
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               134,824
<CGS>                                           93,613
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  133,048
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    15
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 602
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,159
<INCOME-TAX>                                       394
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,159
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       765
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .09
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Elizabeth V. Talbot, Respondent, against Board of Education of City of New York et al., Appellants.

Argued January 18, 1943;

decided March 4, 1943.

*614
      *William C. Chanler, Corporation Counsel (Charles F. Murphy*and *Paxton Blair*of counsel), for appellants.

*Austin B. Mandel*for respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Finch, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ.
#### ATUALUA, Plaintiff v. PULE, Defendant

No. 16-1911

High Court of American Samoa Civil Jurisdiction, Trial Division [Land: “Vaopao”, part of “Levenia” on Ta’u, Manu’a]

October 30, 1911

H. M. T. PEARCE, U.S.N., *Senior Member;*O. S. BOLING, *Associate Member;*and TULIFUA, *Associate Member*

Plaintiff brought this action against the defendant to determine the title to a small piece of land, situated just back of the village of Luma, Ta’u, Manua, known as the land Vaopao, a portion of the land Levenia.

The plaintiff claimed right to said land through the name “Atualua”.

The evidence is not free from conflict. It is shown, however, by the weight of the testimony that the defendant, Pule, is the daughter of one Muafono; that Muafono is the adopted son of one Siulafau, who came over with Muafono from Tutuila about the year 1880; that Muafono, together with one Vaeao of Siufaga went on this land, which it appears was their ancestors’ portion of the land held by the name Pese, while it was yet uncultivated, and made plantations of cocoanuts, breadfruit, bananas and other useful cultivations; that when Muafono decided to return to Tutuila, about a year before the establishment of the Government in Manua, he gave the control of this land to the defendant and Vaeao; that Vaeao and defendant have cultivated and used the products, of said land from the time Muafono returned to Tutuila, without any objection up *254until the present year (1911), when the plaintiff Atualua ordered defendant to stay off the land.

There is some evidence that plaintiff’s ancestors cut copra off this land at one time, but this, it appears, was by permission of Muafono, in order to settle a debt of eight dollars which Muafono owed at the store when he returned to Tutuila.

It appearing that the defendant, together with Yaeao have cultivated and made use of said land for a long period of time, extending from the year 1899 to the year 1911, without objection, and this under color of title as a branch of the Pese family, they have a prescriptive title to said land, if no other, which the court is of the opinion should not be disturbed.

Judgment is therefore decreed in favor of defendant and against the plaintiff.

Costs are assessed at thirty dollars, twenty dollars to be paid by plaintiff and ten dollars to be paid by defendant. Dated this 30th day of October, 1911.
1 

### Daniels, Nia (FAA)

From: Daniels, Nia (FAA)

Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 8:22 AM

To: 'jfsriley@gmail.com'

Cc: '333exemptions@faa.gov' Subject: Request for Additional Information: John F. Riley (FAA-2015-0810)



### Dear Mr. Riley:

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA2015-0810). This information is necessary for the Fe deral Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

 Describe the aircraft makes, mode ls, and types (i.e., fixed-wing, roto rcraft, lighter-than-air) for the proposed UAS operation. The descriptions shou ld include the maximum weight (including payload). This information can be located in the aircraft manuals.

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit any proprietary information to the FAA Hea dquarters or electronically via email to 333exemptions@faa.gov . If

you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the in formation described above by August 6, 2015. If we do not receive the information, we w ill close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

Nia Daniels, ARM

‐ 108

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Rulemaking, Airmen & Airspace Rules Division

800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20591

PH: (202) 267 ‐ 7626

Fax: (202) 267 ‐ 5075 nia.daniels@faa.gov
#### Daniel Rayner *versus*Shubael Bell.

An action will lie against an officer who has taken insufficient bail, without any previous proceedings against the bail.

Case against the defendant, for having taken insufficient bail, in an action instituted by the plaintiff against one *Clark.*At the triai before Parker, C. J., it was in evidence that *Bell*had arrested *Clark,*and taken one surety only on the bail bond. He returned on the original writ that he had taken bail, and on the execution, which issued on the judgment, he returned *non est inventus.*

The defendant objected to the proof of the insufficiency of the bail by witnesses, on the ground that it should be * shown by an effectual proceeding against the surety on *scire facias.*There had been, in fact, no proceedings against the bail, who had left the commonwealth, and was consid ered insolvent.

A verdict was taken for the plaintiff by consent, to be set aside, and a nonsuit entered, if the Court should be of opinion that the plaintiff could not support the action ; otherwise, judgment was to be rendered on the verdict.

*Leland*for the plaintiff.

*I). A. Simmons*for the defendant.

*By the Court.*

This case is settled by the case of *Young*vs. *Hosmer,*11 *Mass. Rep.*89. There seems to be no reason for requiring a creditor first to prosecute a fruitless suit against the bail; thus increasing the final expense to the officer. If he has taken insufficient bail, the wrong is then done, and the right of action accrues, *(a)*
      *Judgment on the verdict.*

*Mather*vs. Green, 17 *Mass. Rep.*60.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.01

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-72192, 333-58510, 333-55828, 333-54886,
333-48582, 333-46252, 333-84545, 333-89170 and 333-89172) and on Form S-3 (Nos.
333-72746, 333-61410, and 333-80419) of Homestore, Inc. of our reports dated
March 25, 2003, relating to the financial statements and financial statement
schedule of Homestore, Inc. which appear in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

/s/    PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP


Century City, California

March 25, 2003
Jakeel Adonis SHAGER v. STATE

CR-16-0018

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

April 21, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Luis NIETO-COSTALES, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-41031 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed April 18, 2017

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

Jose Luis Nieto-Costales, Pro Se

Before KING, HAYNES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Luis Nieto-Costales 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). Nieto-Costales 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.
454 A.2d 182

#### Minersville Safe Deposit Bank v. Tomalonis, et al. Appeal of Shirley Madden.

Argued June 9, 1980.

Stephen P. Edward, for appellant; James D. Watt, for Minersville, appellee; Joseph C. Tomalonis, Jr. and Veronica Tomalonis, appellees, in propria persona.

*647Before BROSKY, CIRILLO and HOFFMAN, JJ.*

*

 Judge Vincent A. Cirillo of the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania is sitting by designation.

Affirmed.
Michael PHILLIPS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3729

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 10, 2018 Rehearing Denied May 16, 2018

Michael Phillips, Crawfordville, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Rebecca Rock McGuigan, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

SAWAYA, EVANDER and WALLIS, 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 quarterly report of Mortons Restaurant Group, Inc. (Mortons) on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas J. Baldwin, 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: May 2, 2008      
|                       
|/s/ THOMAS J. BALDWIN  
|Thomas J. Baldwin      
|Chief Executive Officer
Howard ALEXANDER, Sr., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-3124

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

November 14, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
#### Tao LI, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 14-73575

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 14, 2016 *

Filed December 22, 2016

Thomas J. Tarigo, Esquire, Attorney, Law Offices of Thomas J. Tarigo, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner

Deitz P. Lefort, 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: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Tao Li, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act. *Shrestha v. Holder,*590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on omissions in Li’s asylum application of the beatings he received from fellow inmates and a police visit to his home in China in April 2013. *See id.*at 1048 (adverse credibility determination reasonable under the totality of the circumstances); *see also Zamanov v. Holder,*649 F.3d 969, 973-74 (9th Cir. 2011) (material alterations in the applicant’s account may provide substantial evidence to support an adverse credibility finding). Thus, in the absence of credible testimony, in this case, Li’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. *See Farah v. Ashcroft,*348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

*994Li’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same testimony the agency found not credible, and the record does not otherwise compel the conclusion that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official if he returns to China. *See Shrestha,*590 F.3d at 1049.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
EXHIBIT 99.02





SCHEDULE IIVALUATION AND QUALIFYING ACCOUNTS





Years ended December 31, 2001, 2000 and 1999


(in thousands)





AdditionsBalance at Beginning of Year

Charged to Costs and Expenses

Other


Write-offs Net of Recoveries

Balance at End of YearAllowance for Doubtful Accounts2001

$
4,477

$
29,990

$
3,913
(2)

$
14,155

$
24,2252000


1,627


3,035


789
(2)


974


4,4771999





1,121


1,103
(1)


597


1,627Valuation Allowance for Deferred Tax Assets2001

$
74,611

$
294,944

$
(45,936
)(2)(3)




$
323,6192000


16,570


42,261


15,780
(2)(3)





74,6111999


929


1,756


13,885
(1)





16,570


---

|(1) |  | Balances acquired from the NSI Reorganization and acquisitions.
|--- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------




|(2) |  | Balances acquired from acquisitions.
|--- |  | ------------------------------------




|(3) |  | Balances will be credited to equity upon reduction of valuation allowances.
|--- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
**Exhibit 32(b)**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

OF QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-QSB 

OF PINNACLE DATA SYSTEMS, INC. 

FOR THE QUARTERENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2005 

 

The undersigned is the Chief Financial Officer ofPinnacle Data Systems, Inc. (the “Issuer”). This Certification is made pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. This Certification accompanies the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Issuer for the quarterlyperiod ended September 30, 2005. 

 

I, Michael R. Sayre, certify that theQuarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that information contained in theQuarterly Report on Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer. 

 

This certification is executed as of November 14, 2005.
#### William EL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GREENSBORO POLICE DEPARTMENT, a Corporation; Wayne Scott, Chief of Police; Steven Kory Flowers, In His Individual and Official Capacity; Nancy B. Vaughn, Mayor of Greensboro, In Her Official Capacity; Guilford County Department of Social Services, a Corporation; Michelle MacAdlo, In Her Individual and Official Capacity; Heather Skeens, In Her Individual and Official Capacity; Ron Orgias, In His Individual and Official Capacity; Bill Bencini, Mayor of High Point, In His Official Capacity; High Point Police Department, a Corporation; Marty Sumner, Chief of Police, In His Own Capacity, Defendants-Appellees, and Stephanie Reese, In Her Individual and Official Capacity; C. E. Jenkins, In Official and Individual Capacity, Defendants.

No. 16-2054

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 27, 2017

Decided: April 28, 2017

William El, Appellant Pro Se.

James Anthony Clark, Associate General Counsel, Polly D. Sizemore, CITY OF GREENSBORO LEGAL DEPARTMENT, Greensboro, North Carolina; Matthew Livingston Mason, GUILFORD COUNTY SHERIFF’S ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Before MOTZ, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

William El seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his complaint without prejudice as to seven defendants and ordering a show of good cause for failure to properly effect service on the other four defendants. 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 El seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable 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
Trevontae JOHNSON v. STATE of Mississippi

2015-CT-00235-COA

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Filed: January 24, 2018 Closed: May 3, 2018

Motion Desc: Petition for Writ of Certiorari of Appellant Meekco Johnson.

Certiorari - Denied.
Court of Appeals 

First District of Texas 

BILL OF COSTS

No. 01-14-00360-CV

George M. Bishop, et al 

v.

Chappell Hill Service Company, LLC and High Meadows Land & Cattle, LLC

NO. 35476 IN THE 21ST DISTRICT COURT OF WASHINGTON COUNTY

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID/DUE STATUS PAID BY

MT FEE

SUPP CLK RECORD

CLK RECORD

STATEWIDE EFILING

FILING

$10.00

$32.00

$250.00

$20.00

$175.00

08/14/2014

08/04/2014

06/13/2014

05/20/2014

05/20/2014

E-PAID

UNKNOWN

PAID

PAID

PAID

APE

APE

ANT

ANT

ANT

The costs incurred on appeal to the First Court of Appeals Houston, Texas are 

$487.00.

Court costs in this case have been taxed in this Court’s judgment

I, Christopher A. Prine, Clerk of the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas, do hereby 

certify that this is a true statement of the costs of appeal in this case.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my 

hand and the seal of the Court of Appeals for the 

First District of Texas, this October 16, 2015.
State of Vermont [phone] 802-241-36oo Agency ofNatural Resources 

Office of the Secretary [fax] 802-244-1102 

103 South Main Street, Center Building 

Waterbury, VT o5671-0301 

August 6, 2009 

Ira Leighton 

Acting Regional Administrator 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

EPA New England Regional Office 

One Congress Street, Suite 1100 

Boston, MA 02114-2023 

AuG 3 110 

~ p~NING 00 

g?, Go 

A` 

Re: VERMONT SIP REVISIONS TO ADDRESS REGIONAL HAZE 

Dear Acting Regional Administrator Leighton: 

Enclosed please find revisions to Vermont's State Implementation Plan (SIP) demonstrating that the 

State of Vermont has met its obligations to address regional haze as required by the federal Regional 

Haze Rule, 40 CFR 51 .309. 

We greatly appreciate the helpful comments received from the EPA on February 24, 2009 regarding 

our draft revisions to Vermont's State Implementation Plan for Regional Haze dated December 18, 

2008 . We have also received review comments on our draft Regional Haze SIP Revision from the 

U. S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, the National Park Service and the U.S . Fish and 

Wildlife Service. We have revised our Regional Haze SIP in accordance with these comments . 

The enclosed compact disk includes a full copy of the current (June 2009) Vermont Regional Haze 

SIP Revision, including the supporting attachments and documentation. These documents are also 

available on the Air Pollution Control Division's website at : 

http ://www.anr .state .vt.us/air/Planning/htm/StateImplementationPlan htm. Attached please also find 

the following documentation: 

" ENCLOSURE 1 : PUBLIC NOTICE OF PROPOSED SIP REVISIONS; 

" ENCLOSURE 2: CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 40 CFR § 51 .102 AND APPENDIX 

V OF 40 CFR PART 51 ; 

" ENCLOSURE 3 : LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMENTS RECEIVED, AND VERMONT'S 

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS. 

4or~a V ~R1V1O1 N 1 

Department of Fish & Wildlife . Department of Forests, Parks & Recreation . Department of Environmental Conservation 
This submittal package includes the documentation necessary for the EPA to consider these SIP 

revisions complete . If you have any questions regarding this submittal, please contact Richard 

Valentinetti, Director of Vermont's Air Pollution Control Division at (802) 241-3840. 

Sincerely, 

Jonathan L. Wood 

Secretary, Agency of Natural Resources 

Enclosures (3) 

cc: 

Dave Conroy, Chief, Air Programs Branch, EPA Region 1 

Anne Arnold, Manger, Air Quality Planning Unit, EPA Region I 

Anne McWilliams, EPA Region 1 

Richard Valentinetti, Director, Vermont Air Pollution Control Division