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


<ARTICLE>                                            9
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                            303
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          3,876
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                2,289
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                    0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                         0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          5,500
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            5,348
<LOANS>                                        78,569
<ALLOWANCE>                                       220
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 98,458
<DEPOSITS>                                     71,293
<SHORT-TERM>                                    4,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             1,614
<LONG-TERM>                                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                          154
<OTHER-SE>                                     13,444
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 98,458
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 2,925
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                 170
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                  265
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                3,462
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              1,580
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 44
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           1,838
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      31
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 1,267
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   601
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                        601
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                      358
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                   2.89
<LOANS-NON>                                       382
<LOANS-PAST>                                        0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                    0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                     0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                  195
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       6
<RECOVERIES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                 220
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                              220
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                             0
        


</TABLE>
----

----

Careview Communications 10-K

|   | ● | CareView Communications, Inc., a Texas corporation (“CareView-TX”), a wholly owned subsidiary  |
|--------|---------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | ● | CareView Operations, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company (“CareView Operations”), a wholly owned subsidiary  |
|--------|---------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | ● | CareView-Hillcrest, LLC, a Wisconsin limited liability company (“CareView-Hillcrest”), a variable interest entity  |
|--------|---------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | ● | CareView-Saline, LLC, a Wisconsin limited liability company (“CareView-Saline”), a variable interest entity |
|--------|---------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
**SPAR Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries**

 

 

EXHIBIT 32.1

**Certification of the Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to        Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the six-month period ended June 30, 2009 (this “report”), of SPAR Group, Inc. (the “registrant”), the undersigned hereby certifies that, to his 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/ Gary S. Raymond                    Gary S. Raymond                    President and Chief Executive Officer                    August 14, 2009 |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

**A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to SPAR Group, Inc. and will be retained by SPAR Group, Inc., and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.**

Ex-3
#### Edward Wheeler *et al. versus*Newell Bent, Executor &c.

*Oct. term*1827.

Where after a will of real and personal estate was duly executed, a scrivener, by direction of the testator and in the presence of only one of the subscribing witnesses, interlined another legacy, it was held) that the alteration did not make the will void.

This was an appeal from a decree of the judge of probate allowing a will which was dated April 6, 1823. The appellants were two of the testator’s daughters and heirs at law, with their husbands. The will was duly executed in the presence of three witnesses. After devising certain real and personal estate, the testator gives the residue of his real and personal estate to his sons, Newell Bent and Samuel Bent, they paying the testator’s debts and funeral charges ; and also paying to his “five oldest daughters, that is to say, to Experience Jenkinson, wife of T. J , the sum of fifty dollars,” &c.; four only *65of the five being named, with a legacy of fifty dollars to each. In July, 1825, the testator desired a scrivener to interline the words, “ to Mary Haynes, wife of Daniel Haynes, the sum of fifty dollars.” Mary Haynes was one of the five daughters. The interlineation was made in the presence of J. Rice, One of the subscribing witnesses, and was declared by the testator in the presence of no other witness than Rice and the scrivener, who did not subscribe the instrument at the time of the alteration. At that time A. Kidder, one of the subscribing witnesses, was dead.

*A.*Hilliard, for the appellants,

cited *St.*1783, c. 24, § 2 , 1 Roberts on Wills, (Amer. ed.) 290, § 13; 2 Stark. Ev. 476 to 481 ; *Homer*v. *Wallis,*11 Mass. R. 309 ; 1 Chit. Pl. 479, notes *j*and *k.*

*Hoar, contra,*

cited *Jackson*v. *Malin,*15 Johns. R. 293; *Sutton*v. *Sutton,*Cowp. 812; *Mason*v. *Limbrey,*cited in 1 Burr. 2515 ; *Plume*v. *Beale,*1 P. Wms. 388 ; *Larkins*v. *Larkins,*3 Bos. &. Pul. 16.1

1

 An immaterial alteration in a will, if made by a stranger, will not destroy it. *Malin*v. Malin, 1 Wendell, 625.

The question was, whether the alteration rendered the will void. The Court held that it did not, and the decree of the judge of probate was affirmed.
EX-10.10



 Exhibit 10.10 
 Loan Agreement between Shandong Xiangrui and China Everbright Bank, Qingdao Jiaozhou Branch, dated April 16, 2012, for a RMB 20 million loan 

Main contents: 
  

	 	•	 	 Contract No.: Guan Yin Jiao Yin Zi No. 2011076 



 

	 	•	 	 Loan Amount (RMB): RMB 20,000,000 Yuan 


  

	 	•	 	 Purpose of the Loan: payment to vendor 


  

	 	•	 	 Contract Term: 6 months, from April 16, 2012 to October 16, 2012 



 

	 	•	 	 Interest Rate: 


  

	 	•	 	 The processing fee is 0.05%; 


  

	 	•	 	 Shandong Xiangrui is required to deposit 50% of the loan amount as restricted cash 



 

	 	•	 	 No interest during the 6 month loan period 


  

	 	•	 	 Penalty interest rate for delayed repayment: 0.05% per day 



 

	 	•	 	 Guarantee 


  

	 	•	 	 Ruixing Group provided a guarantee for this loan 


  

	 	•	 	 Shandong Xiangrui used its land use rights as collateral for this loan, the collateral agreement # 2011076
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*Morris U. Schappes, Appellant.

Argued April 20, 1943;

decided July 20, 1943.

*577
      *Henry Epstein*and *Victor 8. Axelroad,*for appellant.

*Herbert D. David,*for New York City Chapter of the National Lawyers Guild, *amicus curiae,*in support of appellant’s position.

*Louis B. Boudin*for Bakery & Confectionery Workers International Union of America, Local 1, A. P. of L., et al., *amici curiae,*in support of appellant’s position. .

*Harold J. Gammer*for Greater New York Industrial Union Council et al., *amici curiae,*in support of appellant’s position.

*Abraham J. Isserman*and *Nathcm Witt*for National Federation for Constitutional Liberties, *amicus curiae,*in support of appellant’s position.

*Frank 8. Hogan, District Attorney (Stanley H. Fuld, George Raducan*and *David Riesman*of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment affirmed; no opinion.

Concur: Loughran; Rippey, Lewis, Conwat and Desmond, JJ. Lehman, Ch. J., dissents in the following memorandum:

*578Lehman, Ch. J.

I dissent on the ground that though there may be sufficient evidence to show that the defendant gave false testimony and is unfit to teach in an institution of learning yet the evidence is insufficient to sustain a finding of guilt of perjury in the first degree upon the theory on which the case was tried, or to sustain a finding that the “ program of the Communist International ” was used “ in making the policy or guiding the actions of a communist unit at the College of the City of New York ” within the meaning of the charge of the trial judge.
```

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 211 (Tuesday, November 1, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75898-75899]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-26357]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; 
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Aviation 
Insurance

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA 
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew a previously approved 
information collection. The requested information is included in air 
carriers applications for insurance when insurance is not available 
from private sources.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by January 3, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ronda 
Thompson, Federal Aviation Administration, ASP-110, 800 Independence 
Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591.

PUBLIC COMMENTS INVITED:  You are asked to comment on any aspect of 
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed 
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the 
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the 
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d) 
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of 
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include 
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information 
collection.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ronda Thompson by email at: 
Ronda.Thompson@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0514.
    Title: Aviation Insurance.

[[Page 75899]]

    Form Numbers: FAA Form 2120-0514.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: The information submitted by applicants for insurance 
under Chapter 443 of Title 49 U.S.C. is used by the FAA to identify the 
eligibility of parties to be insured, the amount of coverage required, 
and insurance premiums. Without collection of this information, the FAA 
would not be able to issue required insurance.
    Respondents: Approximately 61 applicants.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 4 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 616 hours.

    Issued in Washington, DC on October 26, 2016.
Ronda Thompson,
FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, Performance, Policy, and 
Records Management Branch, ASP-110.
[FR Doc. 2016-26357 Filed 10-31-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
 
 The undersigned chief financial officer, individually, certifies that:
 
 1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form10-QSB of American Wagering, Inc.;
 
 2.  Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
 the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
 quarterly report;
 
 3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the
 financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;
 
 4.  The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange
 Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:
 
 a)  designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
 is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;
 b)  evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly
 report (the Evaluation Date); and
 c)  presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
 Evaluation Date;
 
 5.  The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of
 registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 
 a)  all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process,
 summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrants auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and
 b)  any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal controls; and
 
 
 ___/s/ Timothy F. Lockinger
 
 Timothy F. Lockinger, Chief Financial Officer                                                      Date: September 12, 2003
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 on
Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 (the “Report”) of
Pegasus Tel, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company") as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Carl E.
Worboys, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:





(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.





Date:
      March 31, 2008
            /s/ Carl E. WorboysCarl
      E. WorboysPresident
              (Principal
      Executive Officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                             397
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,917
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,221
<INVENTORY>                                     20,094
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                38,530
<PP&E>                                          11,891
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,299
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  49,375
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,447
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            15
<OTHER-SE>                                      35,858
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    49,375
<SALES>                                         59,680
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                62,913
<CGS>                                           45,655
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   25,761
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (8,763)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (3,505)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,258)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,258)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.35)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.35)
        

</TABLE>
#### Ronald Franklin BACON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Reetika KUMAR, M.D.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-16909

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted September 26, 2017 *

OCTOBER 6, 2017

Ronald Franklin Bacon, Soledad, CA, pro se.

Amy Lo, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, 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).

*478MEMORANDUM ***

California state -prisoner Ronald Franklin Bacon appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *Toguchi v. Chung,*391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Bacon’s deliberate indifference claims relating to wheelchair authorization and drug prescriptions because Bacon failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to his serious medical needs. *See id,*at 1057-60 (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health; neither a difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment nor mere negligence in diagnosing or treating a medical condition amounts to deliberate indifference); *see also Jackson v. McIntosh,*90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1996) (a plaintiff “must show that the course of treatment the doctors chose was medically unacceptable under the circumstances”).

We do not consider documents and facts not presented to the district court. *See United States v. Elias,*921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).

AFFIRMED.

***

 xhls disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Mahmood YOONESSI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Andre KHANSARI, LACBA; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-56374

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 11, 2017 *

Filed July 18, 2017

Mahmood Yoonessi, Pro Se

Jonathan M. Gordon, Esquire, Attorney, Evan W. Woolley, Attorney, Alston *&*Bird LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Alston and Bird Esq.

James J. Moak, Esquire, Attorney, Allison Vana,' Esquire, Meserve, Mumper & Hughes LLP, Los Angéles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Prudential CMC

Robert R. Yap, Attorney, Akerman LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees David Howerton, Citibank TIAA

Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Mahmood Yoonessi appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for *523failure to prosecute his action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). *Ferdik v. Bonzelet,*963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Yoonesf s action with prejudice after weighing the pertinent factors and evaluating alternatives to dismissal. *See id.*at 1260-63 (setting forth factors for determining whether a pro se action should be dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)).

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).

Defendant Prudential Mortgage Capital Company, Now Known As PGIM Real Estate Finance, LLC.’s pending motion (Docket Entry No. 7) is granted.

Defendants Citibank TIAA and David Howerton’s pending motion (Docket Entry No. 17) is granted.

Yoonesi’s motion for leave to file a late reply brief (Docket Entry No. 39) is granted. The Clerk shall file the reply brief submitted at Docket Entry No. 41.

Yoonesi’s remaining pending motions (Docket Entry Nos. 6, 40, and 42) are denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### The Rochester Railway Co., App’lt, *v.*William H. Robinson, Resp’t.

Judgment appealed from affirmed, with costs, hut without prejudice to a renewal of the application on an .amended petition.