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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
American Wagering, Inc. Financial Data Schedule Required under: Appendix A to
Item 601(c) of Regulation S-B Commercial and Industrial Companies Article 5 of
Regulation S-X
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1999
<CASH>                                       1,876,117
<SECURITIES>                                   276,428
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,117,762
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (139,157)
<INVENTORY>                                    551,312
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               683,247
<PP&E>                                       6,132,760
<DEPRECIATION>                             (2,139,413)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,835,612
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,855,997
<BONDS>                                      1,848,502
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  1,742,400
<COMMON>                                        78,857
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,316,905
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,835,612
<SALES>                                      5,266,607
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,266,607
<CGS>                                        3,803,402
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,937,701
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                15,531
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              79,453
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (735,016)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (735,016)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (180,148)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.04)



</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kevin FORDE, a/k/a Miami Kev, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-7207

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 17, 2016

Decided: November 22, 2016

S. W. Dawson, Norfolk, Virginia for Appellant. Eric Matthew Hurt, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Kevin Forde 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 *836reasonable 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 Forde 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 materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### Mateo SANCHEZ-MARTINEZ, AKA Mateo Martinez-Sanchez, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 14-72432

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 26, 2017*

Filed July 5, 2017

Aditya Dynar, Phoenix, AZ, Lance Wells, Attorney, -Lance Wells General Counsel, PLLC, Mesa, AZ, for Petitioner

Nancy Canter, Trial Attorney, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil *601Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Mateo Sanchez-Martinez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision pre-termitting his application for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. *Coronado v. Holder,*759 F.3d 977, 982 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not err in concluding that a waiver of inadmissibility under section 212(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h), is not available to waive the effect of the conviction that rendered Sanchez-Martinez ineligible for cancellation of removal. *See Guerrero-Roque v. Lynch,*845 F.3d 940, 942 (9th Cir. 2017) (“[W]e hold that the waiver authority provided in INA § 212(h) does not nullify a conviction that disqualifies an alien from cancellation of removal under INA § 240A(b).”).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Sanchez-Martinez’ unexhausted contentions that the IJ abused his discretion or denied due process by not granting a further continuance. *See Tijani v. Holder,*628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (the court lacks jurisdiction to consider legal claims not presented in an alien’s administrative proceedings before the agency).

We deny Sanchez-Martinez’ motion for judicial notice and to supplement the record on appeal (Docket Entry No. 11) and grant Respondent’s motion to strike exhibits from Sanchez-Martinez’ opening brief (Docket Entry No. 13). *See*8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4) (“[A] court' of appeals shall decide the petition only on the administrative record on which the order of removal is based[.]”); *Fisher v. INS,*79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (new evidence may be added to the record through a motion to reopen with the agency).

We deny Sanchez-Martinez’ request for attorney’s fees as moot.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid*602ed by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. William W. Owens, Respondent, against George N. Schmiedel, Assessor of the Town of Eastchester, et al., Appellants. The People of the State of New York ex rel. William W. Owens, Respondent, against Jerry C. Leary, both as Assessor and as Village Clerk of the Village of Bronxville, et al., Appellants.

Submitted May 18, 1943;

decided June 18, 1943.

*901
      *Lester D. Stickles*for appellants.

*William W. Owens*for respondent.

Orders affirmed, without costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ. Taking no part: Thacher, J.
#### Arthur Jay GOULETTE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ADMINISTRATOR AT CHERRY HOSPITAL; George T. Soloman; C/O Powell; J. Luckey Weish, Jr.; Deborah L. McSwain, DefendantsAppellees.

No. 17-6330

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 22, 2017

Decided: June 27, 2017

Arthur Jay Goulette, Appellant Pro Se.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Arthur Goulette appeals from the district court’s orders dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (2012) and denying his post-judgment motions. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Goulette’s appeal of the order dismissing his § 1983 action because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. Parties are accorded 30 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal peri*700od under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” *Bowles v. Russell,*551 U.S. 205, 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007). The district court’s order dismissing the § 1983 action was entered on the docket on August 4, 2016. The notice of appeal was filed on March 7, 2017.* Goulette’s post-judgment motions had no impact on the time allotted to file the notice of appeal. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A). Because Goul-ette’s notice of appeal was not timely as to the August 4, 2016, order and judgment, we dismiss the appeal of this order.

The notice of appeal is timely, however, for the March 2, 2017, order denying Goul-ette’s post-judgment motions. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Goulette v. Adm’r at Cherry Hosp.,*No. 5:16-ct-03002-FL (E.D.N.C. Mar. 2, 2017). We deny Goulette’s motion to appoint counsel and 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 IN PART, AFFIRMED IN PART*

*

 For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court, Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); *Houston v. Lack,*487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania :

:

v. : No. 28 C.D. 2016

:

Burton Samuel Comensky, :

Appellant :

O R D E R

NOW, December 27, 2016

, having considered appellant’s application

for reargument, the application is denied.

MARY HANNAH LEAVITT,

P resident Judge
Gregory RISO and Wintter & Associates, P.A., Appellants, v. Kenneth RISO, individually, and as co-personal representative of the Estate of Beatrice Riso, deceased, Rocco Riso, individually, and as co-personal representative of the Estate of Beatrice Riso, deceased, Ronald Riso, and Carolyn Campbell, Appellees.

Case No. 2D16-4483

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 16, 2018

Christopher Q. Wintter and Christin Coleman Gallardo, of Wintter & Associates, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for Appellants.

Robert J. Hauser of Pankauski Hauser PLLC, West Palm Beach, for Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LaROSE, C.J., and SILBERMAN and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Frank Kerrigan, Appellant, against Walter B. Martin, as Warden of Clinton Prison, Respondent.

Submitted June 11, 1943;

decided July 20, 1943.

*515
      *Frank Kerrigan,*appellant in person.

*Nathaniel L. Goldstein, Attorney-General (Henry 8. Manley*and *Orrin G. Judd*of counsel), for respondent.

Order affirmed; no opinion. (See 291 N. Y. 662.)

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Rippey, Lewis, Conway, Desmond and Thaoher, JJ.
#### January *vs.*Henry &c.

November 10.

Error to the Mason Circuit; Adam Beaty, Judge,

*Belt. Foreign funds. Action. Covenant.*

Debt. Case 3.

Statement.

An endorsement on the writ signed by tlie name of the defendant purporting to be an acknowledgement of service will not authorize judgment by 'default.

Debt does not lie on an obligation for so many dollars in Philadelphia funds,— covenant is the action— Philadelphia funds defined.

*Bill*for plaintiff; *Bepew*and *Monroe*for clofctu dauts.

Chief Justice Boyle

delivered the Opinion *oí*the Court.

This was an action bf debt bn á note for $527 to be *paid in Philadelphia funds.*

On the writ there is an endorsement, signed by the name of the defendant, purporting to be an acknowledgement of service by him without any return by the sheriff, and judgment was taken by default against the defendant to which he prosecutes this writ of error.

The endorsement on the writ was insufficient to authorise a judgment by default, as has been repeatedly held by this court.*

But there is a defect of a still more radical character, and that is that the action was misconceived, being debt when it ought to have been covenant. Philadelphia funds* in which the payment was stipulated by the note to be made, though in value equal to or greater than money in this state, are not money, but consist of notes, checks or bills upon banks or individuals in Philadelphia, or of other means o£ procuring money there; and it is an ancient and well settled rule, that an action of *debt will lie only*for a certain and determinate sum of money. This rule has been often recognized by this court, (1 Bibb, 356, 360, 2 Bibb, 472, 582.

The judgment must be reversed with the cost and the cause remanded, that the action may be dismissed with cost.

*

See *1*Monroe. 22-236- *4*Littell, 268.
ex67.htm









 


DEMAND PROMISSORY NOTE


 


 







 


 



Exhibit 10.67




 







 


 


$250,000                                                                           Date:  February 23, 2012


 


 







 


 


FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned jointly and severally promise to pay to the order of Warren Breslow, the sum of Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars and no/100 ($250,000.00), together with interest of 10% per annum on the unpaid balance.


 


 


The entire principal and any accrued interest shall be fully and immediately payable UPON DEMAND of any holder thereof.


 


 







 


 


 

 


 


 


”Borrower”


 


Aura Systems, Inc.

















____________________


Melvin Gagerman


Chief Executive Officer







 


Dated: February 23, 2012
#### David J. Schiff, Resp’t, *v.*Caspar Iba, App’lt.

Appeal from ninth district court.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          17,351
<SECURITIES>                                    20,877
<RECEIVABLES>                                   22,078
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                62,619
<PP&E>                                          12,934
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  79,928
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,084
<BONDS>                                          1,417
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      68,972
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    79,928
<SALES>                                         15,796
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                15,796
<CGS>                                            4,333
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,333
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,740
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (555)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (722)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (274)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (448)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (448)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.05)
        

</TABLE>
Presentation to the U.S. Environmental Pro

CPI Product Stewa

EP

W

JeaJea

The Dow 

Jim C

Bayer 
CPI Product Stew

CPI Product Stew

Issues Man

9 Seeks to facilitate improved understanding of local, 

federal and international regulatory and legal requir

9 Supports polyurethane raw material suppliers and c

as lead developers of product stewardship programas lead developers of product stewardship program

industry. 

9 CPI member companies are committed to continuin

improve the industry’s responsible management of polyurethane chemicals polyurethane chemicals. 
A ti it O 

Activity O

• Guidance Documents• Outreach and Communications• Regulatory Compliance Assistance Program• P f i lD l P Professional Development Programs• Truck Bed Liner Program Truck Bed Liner Program
G id D 

G

uidance 

Do

Available in:

En

glish

Spanish

French 

Canadian

French

Portuguese

Simplified 

Chinese

4

Traditional 

Chinese
Outreach and Communications 

Outreach and Communications 

5
Regulatory Co

Regulatory Co

Assistance Progra

Multi year program 

designed to help facilities 

that use diisoc

yanates

Free assis

using the CP

y and re

porti

(MDI/pMDI) calculate annual 

emissions for TRI reporting. 

p 

of which 

the C

6
Polyurethane Prof

Polyurethane Prof

Development P

• AIHA 2009: Professional development course 

consisting of 11 presentations. Sponsored by IRSST and the American Chemistry Council.

– A di u ence - IH f i l IH professionals.

– Offered since 1998.– Both NIOSH, OSHA, and IRSST have actively 

presented.

• CPI P l h P f i l D l CPI

P

olyuret

hane 

Professional Development 

Program: Eight courses covering the basics to advanced topics of polyurethane chemistry. 

– The Environmental, Health, and Safety Course is 

offered to EHS professionals.

– Offered since 2006.

• SPFA Accreditation Program: CPI teaches the 

Health and Safet

y p Cha

pter of Course 101 at the 

Spray Foam Conference.

– Audience – SPF contractors.– Offered for more than 10 years. 
T k B d Li 

Truck Bed Liner 

• Multi-year project, included alliances 

with OSHA Regions IV, V, and VI.

• Alliances focused exclusively on Alliances focused exclusively on

use of MDI in spray-on truck bed liner applications. 

• Resulted in extensive training 

programs and guidance materials. 

– Joint CPI/OSHA Training Seminars– Website– Guidance documents

• English and Spanish

– S ki t peaking engagements

– Trade Shows– Video
C 

on

CPI is proud to have 

decades long history of 

leadership and performance 

in developing and implementing 

product stewardship programs product stewardship programs. 

CPI welcomes the opportunity CPI welcomes the opportunity

to partner with EPA 

on product stewardship initiativeson product stewardship initiatives
OSWER/OSRTI 

Washington, DC 20460 

NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST (NPL) 

***Proposed Site*** September 2012 

CLINCH RIVER CORPORATION Harriman, Tennessee 

Roane County 

 Site Location: 

The Clinch River Corporation site consists of approximately 30.5 acres and is located on the banks of the Emory 

River/Watts Barr Reservoir in Harriman, Tennessee. 

 Site History: 

Clinch River Corporation operated as a pulp and paper mill from 1929 until 2002. Byproducts of the manufacturing 

process include spent processing liquids (“black liquor”), coal tar constituents (polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons or 

PAHs), and piles of wastepaper. 

 Site Contamination/Contaminants: 

Historical investigations at the site have revealed extensive contamination in surface and subsurface soil and shallow 

ground water. Contamination includes elevated concentrations of site-related hazardous substances, including dioxins, 

furans, PAHs, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and various metals in surface and sub-surface soil. In addition, site 

related contaminants have been found in sediment and fish tissue within the Emory River/Watts Barr Reservoir. 

 Potential Impacts on Surrounding Community/Environment: 

Recent investigations suggest that off-site migration from contaminated source areas of dioxins, furans, PAHs and 

several metals into Watts Barr Reservoir, may have affected the fishery. The Emory River (Watts Barr Reservoir) is 

used for recreational and subsistence fishing. An estimated 54,750 pounds of fish are harvested annually from the 

Watts Barr Reservoir. In addition, the Emory River/Watts Barr Reservoir is a habitat for three federally designated 

endangered mussel species, including the Finerayed pigtoe mussel, Purple bean mussel and the Alabama lamp mussel. 

 Response Activities (to date): 

In September 2011, the EPA conducted an emergency removal at the site. The EPA removed 63 drums of hazardous 

material, contaminated soil from the drum storage area, and 20,000 gallons of black liquor from the site. 

 Need for NPL Listing: 

The state of Tennessee referred the site to the EPA to allow for a comprehensive cleanup to address all the human 

health and environmental risks posed by the site. Other federal and state cleanup programs were evaluated, but are not 

viable at this time. The EPA received a letter of support for placing this site on the NPL from the state. 

[The description of the site (release) is based on information available at the time the site was evaluated with the HRS. The description may 

change as additional information is gathered on the sources and extent of contamination.] 

For more information about the hazardous substances identified in this narrative summary, including general information regarding the effects of exposure to 

these substances on human health, please see the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) ToxFAQs. ATSDR ToxFAQs can be found on 

the Internet at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaqs/index.asp or by telephone at 1-888-42-ATSDR or 1-888-422-8737.
<PAGE>

Exhibit 99.1   Press Release



PRESS RELEASE
May 26, 2000          For further information contact:
                              David M. Bradley
                              Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer
                              North Central Bancshares, Inc.
                              825 Central Avenue
                              Fort Dodge, Iowa 50501
                              515-576-7531



                         NORTH CENTRAL BANCSHARES, INC.
                               ANNOUNCES DIVIDEND

David M. Bradley, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of North
Central Bancshares, Inc. (the "Company") announced today that the Company
declared a regular quarterly cash dividend of $0.125 per share on the Company's
common stock for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2000.  The dividend will be
payable to all stockholders of record as of June 16, 2000 and will be paid on
July 6, 2000.

North Central Bancshares, Inc. serves north central and southeastern Iowa at 8
full service locations in Fort Dodge, Nevada, Ames, Burlington, Mount Pleasant
and Perry, Iowa through its wholly-owned subsidiary, First Federal Savings Bank
of Iowa, headquartered in Fort Dodge, Iowa.  The Bank's deposits are insured by
the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The Company's stock is traded on The
Nasdaq National Market under the symbol "FFFD".
#### Olin D. Gray, App'lt, *v.*The Alabama National Bank, Resp’t.

Motion for re-argument or for leave to appeal to the court of appeals denied, with ten dollars costs.