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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
unaudited financial statements dated March 31, 2000 and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
* Dollar amounts are based on conversion rate of 2,023 Lire to the Dollar which
prevailed on March 31, 2000
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           1,607,000
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,496,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,162,000
<INVENTORY>                                     17,128,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                33,312,000
<PP&E>                                          22,106,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                  15,292,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  40,549,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           32,899,000
<BONDS>                                            974,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           12,142,000
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            49,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     (9,420,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    40,549,000
<SALES>                                          9,924,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 9,924,000
<CGS>                                            9,020,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,078,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (90,000)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 599,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,683,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        45,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,728,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,728,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                         (0.32)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (0.32)



</TABLE>
#### Gideon W. Tyler, Respondent, v. Edward Gould, Appellant.

The drawing of a draft or check upon a hanker holding funds of the drawer does not operate as an assignment of such funds.

(Argued January 4, 1872;

decided May term, 1872.).

This action was brought by plaintiff, as assignee of Canfield & Ladd, to recover a balance on deposit with the Citizens’ Bank, which was originally defendant. The present defendant *683was substituted under section 122 of the Code. Canfield *&*Ladd had on deposit with Atwood & Co., of New York, $2,700, and a quantity of paper for collection. Atwood & Co. failed, and, with assent of Canfield *&*Ladd, delivered the. paper to the Citizens’ Bank. Canfield *&*Ladd had drawn sight drafts on Atwood & Co.; they failed, and made an assignment. Six days after the assignment, the holders of the drafts commenced suit, by attachment against them, which was served upon the bank, and under it defendant claimed the avails of the collections on deposit with the bank. A verdict was taken for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the court at General Term.

The General Term directed judgment upon the verdict.

*William A. Oo’wrsen*for the appellant.

*William Tracy*for the respondent.

Hunt, C., reads for affirmance.

All concur. Judgment affirmed.
Marsha Antonia SEALY, Appellant, v. Trevor SEALY, Appellee.

No. 4D17-1631

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[May 16, 2018]

John F. Schutz of John F. Schutz, PL, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Trevor Sealy, Fort Lauderdale, pro se.

Per Curiam.

Former Wife appeals an order directing her and Former Husband to evenly split the proceeds of the sale of their marital home. We have de novo review, as this case involves the interpretation of a contract. *See* *Klinow v. Island Court at Boca W. Prop. Owners' Ass'n* , 64 So.3d 177, 180 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). Because the trial court's remedy exceeds the remedy provided for in the parties' mediated settlement agreement, we reverse. *See* *Chambliss v. Benedikter* , 941 So.2d 589, 591 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (although generally a court is empowered to fashion a remedy that balances equities between parties, it has no authority to vary the explicit terms of a contract).

The mediated settlement agreement indicates that, should Former Wife fail to refinance the mortgage within six months of the dissolution of marriage, Former Husband has the right "to have the house sold or to refinance the house in his own name and buy the wife out of the home for 50% of the equity." The trial court correctly noted that this provision governs the instant dispute. However, it erred in determining that Former Husband would be entitled to 50% of the proceeds of a forced sale of the home, as the 50% language in the contract applies only to the refinance option in which Former Husband refinances the house in his own name and buys out Former Wife's interest in the house.

We therefore affirm the trial court insofar as it forced a sale of the marital home. However, we reverse its grant of 50% of the sale proceeds to Former Husband and remand for evidentiary proceedings as required to determine entitlement to the sale proceeds under the mediated settlement agreement governing the parties' divorce.

*Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.*

Levine, Conner and Forst, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-4507

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ROLAND L. MAYS, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CR-05-30) Submitted: October 28, 2005 Decided: November 15, 2005 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Frank D. Whitney, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Christine Witcover Dean, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Following a jury trial before a magistrate judge, Roland Mays was convicted of forcibly assaulting, resisting, opposing, impeding, intimidating, and interfering with a military police officer, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 111 (West Supp. 2005) (Count 1); communicating a threat, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 13 (2000), assimilating N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-277.1 (1993) (Count 3); and resisting, delaying, or obstructing a public officer, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 13, assimilating N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-223 (1993) (Count 4). The magistrate judge sentenced Mays to twelve months on Count 1, a consecutive four months on Count 3, and a concurrent sixty days on Count 4. Mays appealed to the district court, challenging the magistrate judge's imposition of a consecutive sentence on Count 3. The district court affirmed Mays' sentence and Mays timely appealed. We find no error in the district court's order affirming the sentence imposed by the magistrate judge. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Mays , No. CR-05-30 (E.D.N.C. Apr. 1, 2005). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Guido SUTTER v. CITY OF HEW ORLEANS

NO. 2018-C-0513

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 18, 2018

Denied.
#### Howard WHITE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Eddie PEARSON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 16-7755

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 26, 2017

Decided: May 5, 2017

Howard White, Appellant Pro Se.

Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Howard White, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 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, *218484, 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 White has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions áre adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
EXHIBIT 21.1LIST OF SUBSIDIARIESA) Westernbank Puerto Rico — an insured non-member commercial bank organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.  Subsidiaries of Westernbank Puerto Rico: 1. Westernbank World Plaza, Inc. — incorporated under the laws of theCommonwealth of Puerto Rico, for the purpose of owning, developing, managing andoperating a 23-story office building, including its related parking facility, locatedin Hato Rey, Puerto Rico.  2. SRG Net, Inc. — incorporated under the laws of the Commonwealth of PuertoRico, for the operation of an electronic funds transfer network.  3. W International Corp. (Inactive) — an International banking entityincorporated under the laws of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, to carry commercialbanking and related services, and treasury and investment activities outside ofPuerto Rico.  4. Westernbank Financial Center Corp. – incorporated under the provision ofSection 607.0501 of the Florida Business Corporation Act of the State of Florida, tocarry commercial lending and related services and activities in the United States ofAmerica. This corporation commenced its operations in February 2007.B) Westernbank Insurance Corp. — a registered insurance agency organized and existingunder the laws of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.C) Westernbank Securities, Inc. (Inactive) — a registered securities broker-dealerincorporated under the laws of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
Exhibit 11 - Computation of Earnings Per Share

Earnings Per Share (EPS), presented below is the calculation of basic and
diluted EPS for the Company for the six months ended June 30, 2000 and 1999.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                2000                 1999*
                                                            ---------------------------------
<S>                                                         <C>                   <C>
Income before minority interest                             $11,010,914           $ 9,176,830
Less:   minority interest                                         3,712                 3,712
                                                            -----------           -----------
Net income                                                  $11,007,202           $ 9,173,118

Weighted average shares outstanding                          18,770,580            19,333,306
Plus: effect of stock options as dilutive securities             62,092               158,264
                                                            -----------           -----------
Adjusted weighted average shares assuming dilution           18,832,672            19,491,570

EPS - Basic                                                 $      0.59           $       .47
EPS - Diluted                                               $      0.58           $       .47
</TABLE>


*     Adjusted for the 2-1 stock split, effective October 1999.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000             MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                               0                       0
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                               22,848,000              22,615,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                  2,299,000               1,961,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            28,700,000              27,450,000
<PP&E>                                       4,608,000               5,635,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              56,603,000              54,256,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       13,162,000              14,984,000
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                       117,000                 111,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  31,315,000              24,685,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                31,432,000              24,796,000
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            32,771,000              29,029,000
<CGS>                                       19,713,000              17,368,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             9,423,000               9,366,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               788,000                 651,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             251,000                 329,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,596,000               1,315,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   986,000                 552,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,610,000                 763,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.14                    0.07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.13                    0.07


</TABLE>
#### Eliston F. GEORGE, Appellant v. DIRECTOR VIRGIN ISLANDS BUREAU OF CORRECTIONS

No. 17-1629

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 May 18, 2017

(Opinion filed: May 24, 2017)

Eliston F. George, Pro Se

Pamela R. Tepper, Esq., Su-Layne U. Walker, Esq., Office of Attorney General of Virgin Islands, Department of Justice, St. Thomas, VI, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: SHWARTZ, NYGAARD and FISHER, Circuit Judges

*112OPINION *

PER CURIAM

In 1978, Eliston George was sentenced to life in prison without parole for first degree murder. We affirmed the judgment. Since then, George has repeatedly attempted to challenge his judgment without success.

Most recently, George filed a petition for a writ of audita querela in the District Court of the Virgin Islands. His petition was based on affidavits from two trial witnesses, who claimed that they had perjured themselves at the direction of the prosecutor.

Adopting a report and recommendation over George’s objections, the District Court denied the petition. The District Court concluded that George’s petition “is in substance a § 2255 motion” which he had “not received authorization to file.” The District Court further explained that to the extent that the writ of audita quere-la may “fill the gaps” of the federal post-conviction scheme, restrictions on George’s ability to file another proper § 2255 motion did not create a gap to be filled by the writ. George appeals.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our review is de novo. See United States v. Richter, 510 F,3d 103, 104 (2d Cir. 2007) (per curiam). Upon review, we will summarily affirm because no substantial question is presented on appeal. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6.

A motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is the presumptive means to collaterally challenge a federal conviction or sentence. See Okereke v. United States, 307 F.3d 117, 120 (3d Cir. 2002). The common law writ of error audita querela is not available when a challenge is cognizable under § 2255 because such common law writs survive only to fill the gaps in the current statutory scheme for post-conviction relief. See Massey v. United States, 581 F.3d 172, 174 (3d Cir. 2009) (per cu-riam). As the District Court concluded, George essentially presented claims that could be raised in a § 2255 motion. Although any such § 2255 motion would require our authorization, § 2255 is not an inadequate or ineffective remedy for George just because he appears unable to meet its stringent gatekeeping requirements. See Massey, 581 F.3d at 174. He cannot circumvent those requirements by using a common law writ.

For these reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment.

*

 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.
James THOMAS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-3

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[May 17, 2018]

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Mara C. Herbert, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Joseph D. Coronato, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed.*

Damoorgian, Forst and Klingensmith, JJ., concur.
Order entered August 30, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00940-CR

HAZEM AHMED, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 6

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 006-89052-2018

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s August 28, 2019 motion to substitute counsel. We 

GRANT the motion. We DIRECT the Clerk to remove Jacob Robert Jenkins and to list Bruce 

Anton as counsel of record for appellant. All future correspondence should go to Bruce Anton, 

Udashen Anton, 2311 Cedar Springs Road, Ste. 250, Dallas, TX 75201.

/s/ BILL PEDERSEN, III 

JUSTICE
EX PARTE Marcellus BREACH

CR-16-0520

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

April 19, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. denied.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Keith Terrill PRIM, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-16106 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(March 23, 2017)

John Ryan Love, Robert G. Davies, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Pensacola, FL, Christopher P. Canova, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tallahassee, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Randall Scott Lockhart, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Pensacola, FL, Randolph Patterson Murrell, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Tallahassee, FL, for Defendant-Appellant

Before JORDAN, ROSENBAUM and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Richard M. Summa, appointed counsel for Keith Terrill Prim in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and fifed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no *746arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Prim’s convictions and sentences are AFFIRMED.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

JOSE MIGUAL PEREZ, 

 Petitioner 

 v. 

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF 

LANCASTER COUNTY, 

 Respondent 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 104 MM 2016 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 30th day of September, 2016, the Application for Leave to File 

Original Process is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus and/or 

Extraordinary Relief is DENIED.