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


<ARTICLE>                                          9
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                             13
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          1,800
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                    0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                    0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    12,121
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          9,039
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            8,843
<LOANS>                                        27,582
<ALLOWANCE>                                       286
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 52,042
<DEPOSITS>                                     28,131
<SHORT-TERM>                                    7,307
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                               414
<LONG-TERM>                                     1,700
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                          106
<OTHER-SE>                                     14,384
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 52,042
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                   560
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                 364
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   18
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                  942
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                339
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                457
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                             485
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  1
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                   248
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   257
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                        168
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                      168
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .17
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                   3.84
<LOANS-NON>                                       114
<LOANS-PAST>                                      114
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                    0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                     0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                  286
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       5
<RECOVERIES>                                        5
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                 286
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                              286  
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                             0
        


</TABLE>
#### Daniel MCCAW, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF WATERFORD, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-2314

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Filed July 20, 2017

Todd F. Flood, Flood Lanctot Connor Stablein, Royal Oak, MI, Janet A. Napp, Law Office, Royal Oak, MI, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Sam G. Morgan, Ahmad Chehab, Gasior-ek, Morgan, Greco & McCauley, Farming-ton Hills, MI, for Defendants-Appellees

BEFORE: SUHRHEINRICH, GILMAN, and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff-appellant Daniel McCaw is the former Chief of Police in Waterford Township. In March 2015, his employment was terminated when the Township’s Police and Fire Pension Board, upon application of the Waterford Township Board of Trustees, voted to retire him under provisions of state law because he had reached the age of 60 years. McCaw commenced this action against the Township and its Trustees, asserting several claims under federal and state law. The district court issued a 30-page opinion in August 2016, awarding summary judgment in favor of defendants and disposing of all claims.

In this appeal, McCaw challenges only the court’s ruling on his claim that the manner of his termination violated his right to procedural due process. We review the summary judgment ruling de novo and, having duly considered McCaw’s appellate arguments, we find that they merely rehash arguments fully and properly disposed of by the district court. The district court’s opinion represents a well-reasoned and proper application of the law to the record facts. McCaw’s arguments fail to identify any error. Concluding that our opinion explicitly addressing his arguments would be entirely duplicative, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the dis*435trict court based on the analysis set forth in its opinion.
Dear Mr. Ross:

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing fro m your petition (Docket No. FAA−2015

− 3606 )

. This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

 Describe the aircraft make (s) , model (s) , and type(s)(i.e. , fixed

- wing, rotorcraft, lighter

- than

- air) for the proposed UAS operation. The description (s) should include the maximum weight ( including payload)

. This information can be located in the aircraft manual(s).

Please submit the additional information (non

- proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov

. Once your information has been submitted, please also send a copy of the requested information (and any proprietary information ), as well as your comment tracking number from regulations.gov via e

- mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov

. If you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the information described above by 11/26/15 . I f we do not receive the information , we will close the dock et without notifying you further. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267

- 4549

. Sincerely, /S/ Michael J. Cameron Program Analyst
*Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

____________________

No. 95-31286

Summary Calendar

____________________

EUGENE V. WILLIAMS; FRANK W. RODGERS;

MARY BETH O’BRIEN; AUGUSTUS MARKRIS,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF MASTERS,

MATES AND PILOTS,

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 95-CV-2265-D

_______________________________________________________________

August 26, 1996

Before GARWOOD, JOLLY, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The appellants appeal the district court’s grant of summary

judgment for the International Organization of Masters, Mates and

Pilots. The appellants contend that the district court abused its

discretion in limiting discovery to that presented at the grievance

hearing and that the district court erred in granting summary
-2-

judgment because genuine issues of material fact remained as to the

union’s grievance procedures. We have reviewed the record and the

briefs and AFFIRM the district court’s judgment for essentially the

same reasons set forth by the district court. Williams v.

International Org. of Masters, Mates and Pilots, 95-CV-2265-D (E.D.

La. Dec. 7, 1995).

A F F I R M E D.
#### Lee Ann LOVE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Johnny Oliver WISEMAN; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-16720

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted September 26, 2017 *

OCTOBER 3, 2017

Lee Ann Love, Oakland, CA, pro se

Johnny Oliver Wiseman, Marina, CA, pro se

Vicki Lynn Wiseman, Trustees of the Wiseman Family Trust 2002, Marina, CA, Surfside Enterprises, Inc., Mahdi Radwan, Monterey, CA, Mariam S. Marshall, Esquire, Marshall & Ramos, LLP, Pleasant Hill, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Love's request for oral argument, set forth in her opening brief, is denied.

MEMORANDUM **

Lee Ann Love appeals pro se from the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s orders determining Love’s *463secured status, and dismissing in part Love’s adversary proceeding against the trustee and the debtors. We review de novo our own jurisdiction and whether a bankruptcy court’s decision is final. *Silver Sage Partners, Ltd. v. City of Desert Hot Springs (In re City of Desert Hot Springs),*339 F.3d 782, 787 (9th Cir. 2003). We dismiss.

This court lacks jurisdiction because the bankruptcy court’s orders did not dispose of all claims against all defendants in Love’s adversary proceeding. *See Walther v. King City Transit Mix, Inc. (In re King City Transit Mix, Inc.),*738 F.2d 1065, 1066-67 (9th Cir. 1984) (bankruptcy court order dismissing one of four counterclaims in adversary proceeding was not final); *see also SS Farms, LLC v. Sharp (In re SK Foods, L.P.),*676 F.3d 798, 801-02 (9th Cir. 2012) (district court order affirming interlocutory bankruptcy court order is also interlocutory). Nor did the bankruptcy court direct entry of judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7054. *See Walther,*738 F.2d at 1067.

Love’s request to treat this appeal as a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 1651, set forth in her opening brief, is denied.

DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-11486

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

JAMES LEE WILLIAMS, II, also known as James Lee Williams,

Defendant - Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:12-CR-225-1

Before DENNIS, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

James Lee Williams, II, federal prisoner # 97021-079, appeals the denial 

of his motion for extraordinary relief challenging the legality of the restitution

order imposed in connection with his 2013 conviction for wire fraud. In his 

brief, he renews his challenge to the legality of the restitution order. Williams 

does not challenge the finding by the district court that there was no legal basis 

for a postconviction motion challenging the restitution order. 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 24, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-11486 Document: 00514695273 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/24/2018
No. 17-11486

2

The district court lacked jurisdiction to consider Williams’s motion. See 

United States v. Miller, 599 F.3d 484, 487 (5th Cir. 2010); United States v. 

Hatten, 167 F.3d 884, 887 & n.6 (5th Cir. 1999). Williams’s motion is “an 

unauthorized motion which the district court was without jurisdiction to 

entertain. Thus, he has appealed from the denial of a meaningless, 

unauthorized motion.” United States v. Early, 27 F.3d 140, 142 (5th Cir. 1994). 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 17-11486 Document: 00514695273 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/24/2018
#### David Gerard JEEP, and heir Plaintiff-Appellant v. GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Defendant-Appellee

No. 16-3221

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: October 31, 2016

Filed: December 22, 2016

David Gerard Jeep, Pro Se

Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

David Jeep filed a notice of appeal while this action was pending. After careful review, we dismiss the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction because Jeep’s notice of appeal did not designate the order, judgment, or part thereof that he was appealing. See Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(1)(B) (notice of appeal must designate judgment, order, or part thereof being appealed); Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244, 248, 112 S.Ct. 678, 116 L.Ed.2d 678 (1992) (Rule 3 requirements are jurisdictional). We also deny as moot Jeep’s pending motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis.
#### Kevin LEWIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jan SCULLY, District Attorney, Sacramento County; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-15241

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted August 9, 2017 *

Filed August 15, 2017

Kevin Lewis, Pro Se

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 **

California state prisoner Kevin Lewis appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations arising from his state court conviction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Hamilton v. Brown,*630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); *Whitaker v. Garcetti,*486 F.3d 572, 579 (9th Cir. 2007) (dismissal under *Heck v. Humphrey,*512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994)). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Lewis’s action as i/ec/c-barred because success on Lewis’s claims would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction, and Lewis failed to show that his conviction had been invalidated. *See Heck,*512 U.S. at 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364 (if “a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence ... the complaint must be dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or 'sentence has already been invalidated”).

The district court properly dismissed claims for damages against Judges Mendez, Gilliard, and Newman on the basis of judicial immunity because Lewis failed to allege facts sufficient to show that these *312defendants acted “in the clear absence of all jurisdiction or performed] an act that [was] not judicial in nature.” *Schucker v. Rockwood,*846 F.2d 1202, 1204 (9th Cir. 1988) (explaining judicial immunity doctrine).

The district court properly dismissed claims for damages against defendants Scully and Asker on the basis of prosecu-torial immunity because Lewis failed to allege facts sufficient to show that the actions of these defendants were not “intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process.” *Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, 555*U.S. 335, 341, 129 S.Ct. 855, 172 L.Ed.2d 706 (2009) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted) (explaining prosecutorial immunity doctrine).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Lewis’s motion to re-cuse because Lewis failed to establish any grounds for such relief. *See United States v. Johnson,*610 F.3d 1138, 1147 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for recusal).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

**

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

|   | 1. | the                  Report 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 |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | the                  information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                  respects, the financial condition and results of operations of                  the                  Company. |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| December                  24, 2007                                      |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                                    |   |
|                                                                    |   |
| /s/                  Kent A. Steinwert                                  |   |
| Kent                  A. Steinwert                                      |   |
| President                  & Chief Executive Officer                |   |
|                                                                    |   |
|                                                                    |   |
| /s/                  Stephen W. Haley                                   |   |
| Stephen                  W. Haley                                       |   |
| Executive                  Vice President & Chief Financial Officer |   |

----
<PAGE>


[LOGO]


                                                                  March 22, 1999

MOSSIMO, INC.
2450 White Road
Irvine, CA 92614


Gentlemen:

Reference is made to the Factoring Agreement between us dated January 2, 1990 
(as amended, supplemented, or otherwise modified, the "Agreement").

Pursuant to mutual understanding, effective March 22, 1999, the Agreement is 
amended to provide as follows:

The fourth sentence of Paragraph 17 shall be deleted and replaced by the 
following:

     "AS USED HEREIN, THE TERM "ANNIVERSARY DATE" SHALL MEAN JUNE 30, 2002 AND 
     THE SAME DATE IN EVERY YEAR THEREAFTER"

Except as herein specifically provided, no other change in the terms or 
provisions of the Agreement is intended or implied. If the foregoing is in 
accordance with your understanding of our Agreement, please indicate by 
signing and returning the enclosed copy of this letter to so indicate.

Very truly yours,

THE CIT GROUP/
COMMERCIAL SERVICES, INC.

By: /s/ James Ezemoll, V.P.
   ----------------------------
James Ezemoll, Vice President


Read and Agreed to:

MOSSIMO, INC.

By: /s/ Thora Thoroddsen
   ----------------------------
Name: Thora Thoroddsen
Title: SR VP of Finance
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 AngioGenex, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Richard Salvador, President 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 financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.

/s/ Richard Salvador
------------------------
    Richard Salvador
    President

April 16, 2007


<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of VendingData Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we, Steven J. Blad, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, and John R.
Spina, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer 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:



|By:    |  | /s/STEVEN J. BLADSteven J. Blad       |  | Dated: November 12, 2003
|------ |  | ------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------
|Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer and President |  |                         
|By:    |  | /s/JOHN R. SPINAJohn R. Spina         |  | Dated: November 12, 2003
|Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer |  |                         

This
certification is made solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other purpose.

---

QuickLinks
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-27-1998 
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUN-29-1997 
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-28-1998 
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                          1 
<CASH>                                              25,265 
<SECURITIES>                                             0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                       67,639 
<ALLOWANCES>                                         2,321 
<INVENTORY>                                         52,601 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   154,412 
<PP&E>                                              40,696 
<DEPRECIATION>                                      20,471 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     247,330 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               31,884 
<BONDS>                                             91,853 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0 
<PREFERRED>                                              0 
<COMMON>                                               144 
<OTHER-SE>                                         123,449 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       247,330 
<SALES>                                            138,554 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   138,554 
<CGS>                                               93,591 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       93,591 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    34,781 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   3,539 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      6,643 
<INCOME-TAX>                                        (2,524)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  4,119 
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0 
<CHANGES>                                                0 
<NET-INCOME>                                         4,119 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         0.30 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0.38 
                                               

</TABLE>