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

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE>           5
<LEGEND>
                    The Schedule contains summary financial
                    information extracted from the financial
                    statements for Prudential Securities Strategic
                    Trust and is qualified in its entirety by
                    reference to such financial statements
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<CIK>               0001005006
<NAME>              Prudential Securities Strategic Trust
<MULTIPLIER>        1

<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Dec-31-2000

<PERIOD-START>                  Jan-1-2000

<PERIOD-END>                    Jun-30-2000

<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-Mos

<CASH>                          20,570,375

<SECURITIES>                    (408,441)

<RECEIVABLES>                   1,369

<ALLOWANCES>                    0

<INVENTORY>                     0

<CURRENT-ASSETS>                20,163,303

<PP&E>                          0

<DEPRECIATION>                  0

<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  20,163,303

<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           941,054

<BONDS>                         0

<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0

<PREFERRED>                     0

<COMMON>                        0

<OTHER-SE>                      19,222,249

<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    20,163,303

<SALES>                         0

<TOTAL-REVENUES>                (6,513,992)

<CGS>                           0

<TOTAL-COSTS>                   0

<OTHER-EXPENSES>                769,393

<LOSS-PROVISION>                0

<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              0

<INCOME-PRETAX>                 0

<INCOME-TAX>                    0

<INCOME-CONTINUING>             0

<DISCONTINUED>                  0

<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0

<CHANGES>                       0

<NET-INCOME>                    (7,283,385)

<EPS-BASIC>                   (31.32)

<EPS-DILUTED>                   0

</TABLE>
#### Steve W. CHENNAULT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MORRIS, Registered Dietician, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-55878

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted September 26, 2017 *

OCTOBER 5, 2017

Steve W. Chennault, pro se

*473Terry Price, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellee

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).

MEMORANDUM **

Steve W. Chennault appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. 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 because Chennault failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Appellee was deliberately indifferent in providing care following Chennault’s tonsillectomy or otherwise personally participated in the deprivation of his constitutional rights. *See id.*at 1057 (a prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to an inmate’s health); *see also Starr v. Baca,*652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 2011) (a supervisor is liable under § 1983 only if he or she is personally involved in the constitutional deprivation or there is a “sufficient causal connection between the supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

AFFIRMED.

**

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

                                                                  EXHIBIT 4.4

                            CITIZENS HOLDING COMPANY
                    1999 EMPLOYEES' LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN

                                 AMENDMENT NO. 1

     WHEREAS, Citizens Holding Company (the "Corporation") maintains the
Citizens Holding Company 1999 Employees' Long-Term Incentive Plan, first
effective as of January 1, 1999 (the "Plan"), which provides for the grant or
award of or investment in $.20 par value voting common stock issued by the
Corporation (the "Common Stock");

     WHEREAS, at a meeting of the Board of Directors of the Corporation held on
March 26, 2002, in connection with the three-for-two stock split, the Board
authorized the amendment to the Plan to adjust the number of shares of Common
Stock issuable under the Plan and to modify certain terms and conditions of the
grants and awards outstanding under the Plan;

     NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, effective as of December 31, 2001, Article
VIII, Section 8.6 of the Plan shall be amended and restated as follows:

          8.6 Adjustment. In the event of any merger, consolidation or
     reorganization of the Corporation with another entity, there shall be
     substituted for each of the shares of Common Stock then subject to the Plan
     or any Options granted hereunder the number and kind of shares of stock or
     other securities to which the holders of Common Stock are entitled to in
     the transaction.

          In the event of any recapitalization, stock dividend, stock split,
     combination of shares or other change in the number of shares of Common
     Stock then outstanding for which the Corporation does not receive
     consideration, the number of shares of Common Stock then subject to the
     Plan and any options granted shall be adjusted in proportion to the change
     in outstanding shares of Common Stock. In the event of any such
     substitution or adjustment, the purchase price of any option, the
     performance objectives applicable to any Incentive, and the number of
     shares of Common Stock issuable pursuant to any Incentive shall be adjusted
     to the extent necessary to prevent the dilution or enlargement thereof.

     THIS AMENDMENT was executed in multiple originals, each of which shall be
deemed an original, as of the dates set forth below.

                            CITIZENS HOLDING COMPANY

                            By: /s/ Robert T. Smith
                                -----------------------------------------------
                            Its: Treasurer
                            Date: May 29, 2002
### MANDATE

THE STATE OF TEXAS

TO THE 45TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF B EXAR COUNTY, GRE ETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas on July 19, 2017, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

Service Life & Casualty Insurance Company, Appellant

V.

Trinity Mesa Real Estate Services, LLC, Appellee

No. 04

- 17

- 00295

- CV and Tr. Ct. No. 2016

- CI

- 05243

was determined, and therein our said Court of Appeals made its order in these words:



## Appellant’ s petition for permissive appeal is DENIED. This appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. We order that appellees recover their costs of this appeal.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas, in this behalf and in all things have the order duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS the Hon. Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas, with the seal of the Court affixed and the City of San Antonio on September 27, 2017

. KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLE RK

____________________________ Cynthia A. Martinez Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853BILL OF COSTS



### TEXAS COURT OF AP PEALS, FOURTH DISTRICT, AT SAN ANTONIO

No. 04

- 17

- 00295

- CV

Service Life & Casualty Insurance Company

v.

Trinity Mesa Real Estate Services, LLC

(NO. 2016

- CI

- 05243 IN 45T H JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF BEXAR COUNT Y)

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID BY MOTION FEE MOTIO N FEE FILING SUPREME COURT CHAPTE R 51 FEE INDIGENT STATEWIDE EFILING FE E MOTION FEE $10.00 $10.00 $100.00

$50.00 $25.00 $30.00 $10.00 E

- PAID E

- PAID E

- PAID

E

- PAID E

- PAID E

- PAID E

- PAID CHELSEA MACDIARMID N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A

Balance of costs owing to the Fourth Court of Appeals, San Antonio, Texas: 0.00

**Court costs in this cause shall be paid as per the Judgment issued by this Court.**

I, KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLE RK OF THE FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, do hereby certify that the above and f oregoing is a true and correct copy of the cost bill of THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS, showing the charges and payments, in the above numbered and styled cause, as the same appears of record in this office.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, w itness my hand and the Seal of the COURT OF APPEALS for the Fourth District of Texas, this Septemb er 27, 2017

.
KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLE RK

____________________________ Cynthia A. Martinez Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853
#### Reader Mail, Inc., Appellant, *v.*Sol Fishko, as President of Paper Workers & Distributing Trades Union, Local 447 of International Printing Pressmen and Assistants’ Union of North America, A. F. of L., an Unincorporated Association, Respondent.

Submitted November 22, 1943;

decided December 2, 1943.

*Mildred Both*and *'Frank Scheiner*opposed.

Motion dismissed with ten dollars costs and necessary printing disbursements, on the ground that the order does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
##### 



Exhibit 99.2

LETTER TO THE COMMISSION PURSUANT TO TEMPORARY NOTE 3T

CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS HOLDINGS, LLC
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS HOLDINGS CAPITAL CORPORATION
12405 Powerscourt Drive, Suite 100
St. Louis, Missouri 63131





March 29, 2002



Securities and Exchange Commission
Washington, D.C. 20549

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Pursuant to temporary note 3T, Charter Communications Holdings, LLC and
Charter Communications Holdings Capital Corporation have obtained a letter of
representation from Arthur Andersen stating that the December 31, 2001 audit
was subject to their quality control system for the U.S. accounting and
auditing practice to provide reasonable assurance that the engagement was
conducted in compliance with professional standards, that there was appropriate
continuity of Arthur Andersen personnel working on the audit and availability of
national office consultation. Availability of personnel at foreign affiliates
of Arthur Andersen was not relevant to the audit.

| |  |                        |                              |                                                  
| |  | ---------------------- | ---------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------
| |  | Very truly yours,     
|
|
|
|
| |  |                        |                              |                                                  
|
|
|
|
| |  | CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS
|
|
|
|
| |  |                        | HOLDINGS, LLC               
|
|
|
|
| |  | CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS
|
|
|
|
| |  |                        | HOLDINGS CAPITAL CORPORATION
|
|
|
|
| |  |                        |                              |                                                  
|
|
|
|
| |  |                        |                              |                                                  
|
|
|
|
| |  | By:                    |                              | /s/ Kent D. Kalkwarf                             
| |  |                        |                             
| |  |                        |                              | Executive Vice President, Chief Financial
Officer
<PAGE>
                                                                EXHIBIT 10.3(A)


THIS OFFERING EXPIRES AT 5:00 P.M EASTERN STANDARD TIME, JULY 31, 2002


                          KENSINGTON BANKSHARES, INC.
                    SUBSCRIPTION FOR SHARES OF COMMON STOCK

         The registered owner named below is entitled to purchase
_______________ shares of Common Stock of Kensington Bankshares, Inc. at a
price of $7.50 per share, at any time during the period commencing
________________________________, 2002, and ending at 5:00 P.M., Eastern
Standard Time on July 31, 2002, upon the terms specified herein and in the
Prospectus relating thereto.

NAME:
     -----------------------------------------------
     (please print)


         The undersigned irrevocably subscribes for the following shares upon
the terms and conditions specified in the Prospectus of Kensington Bankshares,
Inc., dated June _____, 2002, (receipt of which is acknowledged):

<TABLE>
<S>                                                           <C>
BASIC SUBSCRIPTION PRIVILEGE:

         Shares Subscribed For:                                                                   shares
                                                               ----------------------------------

         Cost of Shares Subscribed
         For at $7.50 per share                               $
                                                               ----------------------------------

Check Enclosed:  Total payable to:
Kensington Bankshares, Inc.                                   $
                                                               ----------------------------------

OVER SUBSCRIPTION REQUEST

         In addition to the above, the undersigned
         desires to purchase additional shares at a                                               shares
         price of $7.50 per share.                              ---------------------------------
</TABLE>


                  THESE SECURITIES ARE NOT FEDERALLY INSURED.


Signature:
                          -----------------------------------------------------

Address:
                          -----------------------------------------------------

Telephone Number:
                          -----------------------------------------------------

Social Security Number:
                          -----------------------------------------------------


                                    ACCEPTED

KENSINGTON BANKSHARES, INC.
13246 North Dale Mabry Highway
Tampa, Florida  33624
Telephone Number:  (813) 961-6200
                                             By:
                                                -------------------------------
#### The State v. Keegan.

Criminal Law : jury trial : verdiot by agreement. The defendant on a charge of larceny pleaded not guilty, and a jury was impaneled. Thereupon, by agreement between the district attorney and defendant, the jury returned a verdict of guilty. *Held*that this was equivalent to an admission by defendant of his guilt in open court and in the "presence of the jury, and that the verdict could not be disturbed on the ground that it was not the result of a trial by jury.

*Appeal from Blade Hawlc District Court.*— Hon. C. F. Couch, Judge.

Filed, March 10, 1888.

Indictment for larceny from the person of another. Trial by jury, verdict of guilty, judgment, and the defendant appeals.

*J. 8.*Darling, for appellant.

*A. J.*Baiter, Attorney General, for the State.

Servers, C. J.

The defendant pleaded not guilty, and a jury was impaneled to try such issue. Thereupon, by agreement between the district attorney and the defendant, the jury returned the following verdict: *“We,*the jury, find the defendant guilty of larceny from the person of another, as charged in the indictment,” and on such verdict judgment was pronounced. It is said an issue of fact arises on a plea of not guilty, and that such issue must be tried by a jury. Code, secs. 4349, 4350. It is further said that a trial is a judicial examination of the issues, whether of law or fact, and, therefore, it is contended that the verdict was not rendered in accordance with the law, and is void. We are not prepared to concur in this proposition. To all intents and purposes the defendant *146admitted his guilt in open court and in the presence of the jury. This presumption must be indulged in the absence of any showing to the contrary. Besides this, it does not appear that no evidence was introduced. In effect the defendant, with a plea of not guilty on file, admitted his guilt; and, as this was done in open court, the jury were fully warranted in acting upon such admission and finding the verdict. Under the admission made, it was the only verdict the jury could have found, and the fact that the form was agreed upon between the state and defendant is immaterial.

Affirmed.
#### Marie-Louise PAUSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-35800

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 11, 2017 *

Filed July 18, 2017

Marie-Louise Pauson, Pro Se

Ryan M. Carson, Wright, Finlay *&*Zak, LLP,' Seattle, WA, Jonathan D. Fink, Attorney, Wright, Finlay & Zak, LLP, Newport Beach, CA, for Defendant-Appellee

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 **

Marie-Louise Pauson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her action alleging a violation of the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”). We review de novo questions of our own jurisdiction. *Hunt v. Imperial Merchant Servs., Inc.,*560 F.3d 1137, 1140 (9th Cir. 2009).

Because the foreclosure sale of the property has already been completed, we cannot grant the relief Pauson requests and we dismiss the appeal as moot. *See Vegas Diamond Props., LLC v. FDIC,*669 F.3d 933, 936 (9th Cir. 2012) (“[T]he sale of the real properties prevents this Court from granting the requested relief and accordingly renders this appeal moot.”); *Am. Cas. Co. of Reading, Pa. v. Baker,*22 F.3d 880, 896 (9th Cir. 1994) (a case is moot when there is no longer a present controversy as to which effective relief can be granted).

DISMISSED.

**

 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;and |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | To      my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in      all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations      of the Company as of and for the period covered by the    Report. |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:      March 30, 2009 | By:    | /s/      Adiv Baruch                      |
|--------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------|
|                           |   | Adiv      Baruch                          |
|                           |   | Chief      Executive Officer andPresident |

----
#### LUTU of Utulei, Plaintiff v. FAGA of Fagatogo, Defendant

No. 3-1933

High Court of American Samoa Civil Jurisdiction, Trial Division [Land: “Fauloloa” or “Paia” in Fagatogo]

February 6, 1933

H. P. WOOD, *Chief Justice;*MULI, *Associate Judge*

DECISION

This case came on to be heard at a session of the High Court on Monday February 6th, 1933 before Chief Justice H. P. Wood and Associate Judge Muli.

Faagata of Fagatogo filed the land Fauloloa for registration and Lutu of -Utulei objected. The land *481Fauloloa is the site of the old L. M. S. Church in Fagatogo and where it is proposed to erect the new church.

Even assuming that the small piece of land in Fagatogo upon which the L. M. S. Church has stood for over 25 years was not included in the gift of the land which Faagata admits his predecessor in title made to a Lutu many years ago, yet the facts remain that Lutu was granted land adjoining the land in question, both to the north and south and that Faagata during the period of 25 years never asserted any rights to this land.

Under these circumstances the Court must hold that the use and occupation of this land by the L. M. S. as lessee, under a written lease from Lutu made in 1904, and recorded in the office of the Registrar of Deeds of American Samoa in 1905, was such an actual, visible, exclusive and hostile possession by Lutu as to vest the title in him by adverse possession, as the matai of the Lutu family. The land is called by Lutu, Paia.

Judgment is for Lutu as matai of the Lutu family. The costs amounting to $25.00 will be paid by Faagata.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM STERLING 
COMMERCE INC FROM 10Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH 
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         328,796
<SECURITIES>                                   159,351
<RECEIVABLES>                                   81,469
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                19,874
<PP&E>                                          94,620
<DEPRECIATION>                                  38,682
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 717,278
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          118,971
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           896
<OTHER-SE>                                     569,192
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   717,278
<SALES>                                        242,101
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               242,101
<CGS>                                           50,200
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  207,103
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 44,893
<INCOME-TAX>                                    17,492
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             27,401
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    27,401
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .33
        

</TABLE>