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

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          43,440
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          35,445
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 6,755
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    308,724
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          98,376
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            98,272
<LOANS>                                      1,339,455
<ALLOWANCE>                                     10,150
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,942,652
<DEPOSITS>                                   1,521,734
<SHORT-TERM>                                   127,492
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             32,133
<LONG-TERM>                                    111,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        18,663
<OTHER-SE>                                     131,630
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               1,942,652
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 78,713
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                8,399
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                20,208
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               107,320
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              40,247
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              54,356
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           52,964
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    3,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               (250)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 55,351
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 18,062
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      18,062
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    12,824
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.99
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.24
<LOANS-NON>                                      7,470
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   720
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 9,859
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    2,722
<RECOVERIES>                                       283
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               10,150
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            10,150
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
Per the updated preliminary agenda, the following educational presentations are scheduled to be made 

before the Rail Vehicles Access Advisory Committee (RVAAC) on Jan 9, 2014. The attachments to this 

file contain the presentations.

 Federal Railroad Administration – Rail 101

 Federal Railroad Administration – Summary of PRIIA Next Generation Equipment 

Committee Accessibility Accommodations and Other Areas for Consideration

 Bombardier Transportation – Toilet Module Footprint

 International Centre for Accessible Transportation – Integrated Solutions to Accessible 

Coach Car Elements

 Talgo – A Brief Description of the Three Distinct “Bi-Level” Passenger Car Designs 

Currently in Use on the US “General System”

 Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority – 7000 Series Rail Car Accessibility 

Features

Refer to the summary minutes for the 2nd RVAAC meeting (Jan 9 to 10, 2014) to determine if these 

presentations were made.
No. 13-0892 Carol Kinsinger v. Todd Pethel 

### FILED November 13, 2014 RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA Justice Ketchum, concurring, in part, and dissenting, in part:

I agree that Mr. Pethel should not be held in contempt. I disagree with our holding that Ms. Kinsinger shall be granted a money judgment against Mr. Pethel in the amount of $4,018.15, less any appropriate credits. The doctrine of laches bars claims when a person unreasonably delays in asserting a claim and the delay works to the disadvantage or prejudice the defendant. Grose v. Grose , 222 W.Va. 722, 671 S.E.2d 727 (2008). In finding that Ms. Kinsinger’s claim was barred by the doctrine of laches, the circuit court’s order focused on her six-year delay in submitting an order granting her a share of Mr. Pethel’s retirement benefits. However, the order failed to discuss whether the delay caused any disadvantage or prejudice to Mr. Pethel. Although no finding was made by the circuit court that there was not any disadvantage or prejudice to Mr. Pethel, the majority opinion orders that a money judgment be entered against Mr. Pethel. There is no evidence in the record to support this mandate. The case should have been remanded to the circuit court for factual findings as to whether Ms. Kinsinger’s delay caused any disadvantages or prejudice to Mr. Pethel.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Anthony ROWE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6309

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: September 7, 2017

Decided: September 15, 2017

John Anthony Rowe, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Freeman Greene, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

John Anthony Rowe seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (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 motion 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 Rowe has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the *208materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21
- 0200 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. TIMOTHY GALE MUNYAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including January 2, 2022, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening br ief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 2 2021

12/02/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0200
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         116,761
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    1,327,746
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1,557,007
<PP&E>                                         536,990
<DEPRECIATION>                                 223,254
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2,639,480
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          4,535,771
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       29,133
<OTHER-SE>                                     (2,010,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2,639,480
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1,494,872
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             94,131
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,589,003)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,589,003)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,589,003)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.55)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        

</TABLE>
ATTACHMENT HEADER SHEET

Attachment Number 004

Attachment Name

CAS 73361-29-2 Manufacturing Process and Impurity Profile

Associated PMN Section Number

Pt.I, Sec.B, 3.

Contains CBI

Report Number

 Sanitized Version
All CBI has been removed
`EXHIBIT 32.1

                           NATIONAL AUTO CREDIT, INC.
                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                           PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

I, James J. McNamara, Chief Executive Officer of National Auto Credit, Inc., a
Delaware corporation (the "Registrant"), in connection with the Registrant's
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 30, 2005, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), do
hereby represent, warrant and certify pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

         (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Registrant.


/s/ James J. McNamara
--------------------------------------------
Name: James J. McNamara
Title: Chief Executive Officer
(principal executive officer)
Date: June 10, 2005



















A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to National Auto Credit, Inc. and
will be retained by National Auto Credit, Inc. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





                                       39`
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2


                            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 Annual Report of Vitalstate, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James Klein, 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 financial condition and results of operations
          of the Company.


        /s/ James Klein
----------------------------------------
Name:    James Klein
Title:   Chief Financial Officer
Date:    March 28, 2003



                                       59


<PAGE>
Order entered October , 2012

In The 

# Court of appeabs liftb 3Biotritt of Zrexali at 313af1ati

No. 05-12-00551-CR KEITH BRONSHA PAUL, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 7

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F10-42449-Y



### ORDER The reporter's record is overdue in this appeal. Accordingly, we ORDER the trial court to make findings of fact regarding whether appellant has been deprived of the reporter's record because of ineffective counsel, indigence, or for any other reason.

• The trial court shall first determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal. If the trial court determines that appellant does not desire to prosecute this appeal, it shall make a finding to that effect.

• If the trial court determines that appellant desires to prosecute the appeal, it shall next determine whether appellant is indigent and entitled to proceed without payment of costs for the reporter's record. If appellant is entitled to proceed without payment of costs, the trial court shall make a finding to that effect. Moreover, if appellant is indigent, the trial court is ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective representation, which may include appointment of new counsel. If the trial court finds

### appellant is not indigent, it shall determine whether retained counsel has abandoned the

appeal. • The trial court shall next determine: (1) the name and address of each court reporter who recorded the proceedings in this cause; (2) the court reporter's explanation for the delay in filing the reporter's record; and (3) the earliest date by which the reporter's record can be filed. We ORDER 

### the trial court to transmit a supplemental record, containing the written findings of fact, any supporting documentation, and any orders, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS 

### of the date of this order. The appeal is ABATED 

### to allow the trial court to comply with this order. It shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the supplemental record is received, whichever is earlier.

DAVID L. BRIDGES JUSTICE
#### Derlon CRAIN, Plaintiff-Appellant v. STATE HEALTH & HOSPITAL DEPARTMENT; John Ford; Olivia Watkins Hwang, Defendants-Appellees

No. 16-30247

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed April 28, 2017

Derlon Crain, Pro Se

Before OWEN, ELROD, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Derlon Crain, Louisiana prisoner # 91405, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (IFP), filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals (Department), the Department’s executive director John Ford, and the Department’s spokesperson Olivia Watkins Hwang. He generally alleged that the defendants’ malfeasance and negligence in monitoring the health of incoming inmates at the Calcasieu Parish Jail caused him to contract tuberculosis. The district court agreed with the magistrate judge that the claim against the Department was barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity and that Crain had failed to allege any direct or personal involvement in the events underlying Crain’s complaint. Accordingly, the district court dismissed the complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim and denied Crain leave to proceed IFP on appeal, certifying that Crain’s appeal was not taken in good faith. Crain now seeks leave to proceed IFP on appeal.

By moving for leave to proceed IFP, Crain is challenging the district court’s IFP certification. *See Baugh v. Taylor,*117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Our inquiry into whether the appeal is taken in good faith “is limited to whether the appeal involves legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).” *Howard v. King,*707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Crain does not address the district court’s basis for dismissing his § 1983 complaint. Rather, he merely contends that he is indigent, that the district court’s dismissal was wrong, and that if afforded the opportunity, he could provide evidence in support of his complaint.

When an appellant fails to identify any error in the district court’s analysis, it is the same as if the appellant had not appealed that judgment. *Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner,*813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). By failing to address the basis for the dismissal of his § 1983 complaint, Crain has abandoned the issue on appeal. *See Yohey v. Collins,*985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993).

Crain has not shown that his “appeal involves legal points arguable on their merits.” *See Howard,*707 F.2d at 219. Accordingly, Crain’s motion for IFP status is DENIED, and his appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. *See Baugh,*117 F.3d at 202 *&*n.24.

*

 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.
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.34



FIRST AMENDMENT TO 
UNITED CONTINENTAL HOLDINGS, INC. 
PERFORMANCE-BASED RSU PROGRAM 
WHEREAS, the United Continental Holdings, Inc. Performance-Based RSU Program (the “Program”) has heretofore been adopted by the Compensation Committee (the “Committee”) of the Board of Directors of United Continental Holdings, Inc. to implement in part the “RSU” provisions of the United Continental Holdings, Inc. 2017 Incentive Compensation Plan; 
WHEREAS, the Committee is authorized to amend the Program; and 
WHEREAS, the Committee desires to amend the Program in certain respects; 
NOW, THEREFORE, the Program shall be amended as follows, effective with respect to Performance Periods (as such term is defined in the Program) beginning on or after January 1, 2019: 
1. Sections 2.1(o) of the Program shall be deleted and the following shall be substituted therefor: 
“(o) “Fair Market Value” means, as of any specified date, in the case of a cash-settled Award, the simple average of the closing sales prices of Company Stock on the principal securities market on which the Company Stock is then traded over the 20 most recent consecutive Trading Days ending on the last Trading Day preceding the specified date, adjusted appropriately by the Committee for any stock splits, stock dividends, reverse stock splits, special dividends or other similar matters occurring during or with respect to any relevant measurement period.” 
2. Sections 2.1(s) of the Program shall be deleted and the following shall be substituted therefor: 
“(s)” Payment Amount” means, with respect to each Participant and each Performance Period for which the Performance Goal is satisfied, (i) in the case of a cash-settled Award, an amount equal to (A) the number of RSUs subject to such Participant’s Award for such Performance Period, multiplied by (B) such Participant’s Vested Percentage for such Performance Period, multiplied by (C) the Fair Market Value as of the Payment Computation Date for such Performance Period, and (ii) in the case of a stock-settled Award, an amount equal to (A) the number of RSUs subject to such Participant’s Award for such Performance Period, multiplied by (B) such Participant’s Vested Percentage for such Performance Period.  Notwithstanding the foregoing, a Payment Amount may be prorated as provided in the Program.”
3. As amended hereby, the Program is specifically ratified and reaffirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>      5
<LEGEND>
               This schedule contains summary financial information
               extracted from the financial statements contained in the
               Company's Report on Form 10Q for the quarter ended June 30,
               1999 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
               financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                                    <C>             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          3-MOS           6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-1999     DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                           JUN-30-1999     JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                 29,913          42,950
<SECURITIES>                           32,320          46,867
<RECEIVABLES>                          74,301          88,872
<ALLOWANCES>                           (13,574)        (10,480)
<INVENTORY>                            47,147          61,200
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                       178,843         242,233
<PP&E>                                 38,177          37,418
<DEPRECIATION>                         (26,218)        (23,541)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         252,757         327,666
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                  55,648          55,852
<BONDS>                                108,104         115,000
<COMMON>                               562             553
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                  0               0
<PREFERRED>                            0               0
<OTHER-SE>                             87,201          154,955
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           252,757         327,666
<SALES>                                40,427          71,719
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       40,427          71,719
<CGS>                                  22,472          52,562
<TOTAL-COSTS>                          22,472          52,562
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                       0               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                       3,019           3,019
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     3,929           1,855
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        (24,198)        (64,767)
<INCOME-TAX>                           575             698
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    (24,773)        (65,465)
<DISCONTINUED>                         0               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                        0               0
<CHANGES>                              0               0
<NET-INCOME>                           (24,773)        (65,465)
<EPS-BASIC>                          (0.98)          (2.56)
<EPS-DILUTED>                          (0.98)          (2.56)


</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

BRYAN CURTIS ROCHA,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§ 

No. 08-11-00352-CR

Appeal from the

211th Judicial District Court

of Denton County, Texas 

(TC# F-2010-0925-C) 

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the 

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. This decision shall be certified 

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 14TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2013.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ.
#### Elizabeth M. Morgan et al., Respondents, *v.*Fiduciary Trust Company of New York, as Trustee, et al., Respondents, and Joseph Lorenz, as Trustee in Bankruptcy of Richard Whitney et al., Individually and as Copartners under the Name of Richard Whitney & Company, Appellant.

Argued January 20,1943;

decided March 4, 1943.

*619
      *Randolph H. Guthrie, George L. Trumbull*and *Jesse G. Heiges*for appellant.

*C. Dickerman Williams*for plaintiffs-respondents.

*Malcolm I. Ruddock*and *F. Sims McGrath*for Fiduciary Trust Company of New York, as trustee, et al., defendants-respondents.

*George B. Francis*and *Wendell Davis*as Guardian ad Litem for Edwin D. Morgan, III, et al., infants, defendants-respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs to the respondents payable out of the fund. No opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Finch, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ.