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-31-1999

<PERIOD-START>                  Jan-1-1999

<PERIOD-END>                    Mar-31-1999

<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-Mos

<CASH>                          44,255,184

<SECURITIES>                    891,304

<RECEIVABLES>                   43,681

<ALLOWANCES>                    0

<INVENTORY>                     0

<CURRENT-ASSETS>                45,190,169

<PP&E>                          0

<DEPRECIATION>                  0

<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  45,190,169

<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           948,651

<BONDS>                         0

<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0

<PREFERRED>                     0

<COMMON>                        0

<OTHER-SE>                      44,241,518

<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    45,190,169

<SALES>                         0

<TOTAL-REVENUES>                3,021,174

<CGS>                           0

<TOTAL-COSTS>                   0

<OTHER-EXPENSES>                1,414,341

<LOSS-PROVISION>                0

<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              0

<INCOME-PRETAX>                 0

<INCOME-TAX>                    0

<INCOME-CONTINUING>             0

<DISCONTINUED>                  0

<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0

<CHANGES>                       0

<NET-INCOME>                    1,606,833

<EPS-PRIMARY>                   4.51

<EPS-DILUTED>                   0

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Carlos Alejandro RODRIGUEZ-PADRON Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-3706

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: June 1, 2017

Filed: June 6, 2017

*452Martin Klein, Special Assistant U.S.' Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Lincoln, NE, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Carlos Alejandro Rodriguez-Padron, Pro Se

Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

A jury found Carlos Alejandro Rodriguez-Padron guilty of two counts of distributing methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1), (b)(1)(A). The district court1 sentenced him to 97 months in prison, followed by four years of supervised release. On appeal, Rodriguez-Padron’s counsel has filed a brief under *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, the admission of certain evidence, and the reasonableness of the sentence. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

The trial evidence showed that Rodriguez-Padron twice sold an ounce of methamphetamine to a confidential informant, and the transactions were captured on audio and video recordings. *See United States v. Garcia,*646 F.3d 1061, 1066-67 (8th Cir. 2011). After Rodriguez-Padron testified that the transactions were not what they appeared to be and that he was unfamiliar with methamphetamine, the district court properly allowed the government to introduce impeachment evidence — with a limiting instruction — in the form of Rodriguez-Padron’s proffer statements, and another witness’s testimony about Rodriguez-Padron’s prior methamphetamine transactions. *See United States*v. *Clarke,*564 F.3d 949, 957-58 (8th Cir. 2009) (finding no error under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) by allowing impeachment evidence); *United States v. Rowley,*975 F.2d 1357, 1362 (8th Cir. 1992) (upholding admission of defendant’s proffer statements for impeachment purposes). There is no support in the record for a finding that the sentence, which was at the bottom of the guidelines range, was unreasonable. *See United States v. Harlan,*815 F.3d 1100, 1107 (8th Cir. 2016).

Having conducted an independent review under *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), this court finds no nonfrivolous issue.

The judgment is affirmed. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

1

. The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska.
#### Catherine F. Brew, as Executrix of Mona B. Seidl, Deceased, Appellant, *v.*Henry Behrenhoff, Respondent.

Argued December 1, 1943;

decided January 6, 1944.

*779
      *Myron Wisoff*and *Samuel J. Moskowits*for appellant.

*Herbert F. Hastings, Jr.,*andF. *G. Mann*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Rippey, Lewis, Conway, Desmond and Thacher, JJ.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.



## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2009-3160 MARGARET L. THOMAS,

Petitioner,

v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Respondent. Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board

in AT0831070861-1-2. ON MOTION ORDER Margaret L. Thomas submits a second letter requesting discovery. The court previously informed Thomas that discovery of additional documents is not conducted on appeal. The court will treat Thomas's June 15, 2009 letter as her reply brief. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: Thomas's letter is treated as her reply brief. Copies of the letter and this order shall be transmitted to the merits panel assigned to hear this case. FOR THE COURT 

# JUN 2 5 2009 /s/ Jan Horbalv Date Jan Horbaly Clerk cc: Margaret L. Thomas William P. Rayel, Esq. s8 tee us. MU& APPEALS FOR THE F RAL CIRCUIT JUN 2 5 2009 JAN HORBALY CLERK
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6591 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6591

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 29, 2024

 Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Small Business 
                          and Entrepreneurship

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
    To amend section 8(a) of the Small Business Act to require the 
    Administrator of the Small Business Administration to regularly 
   reassess the asset and net worth thresholds for qualifying as an 
     economically disadvantaged individual, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Encouraging Success Act''.

SEC. 2. REGULAR REASSESSMENT OF THE THRESHOLDS FOR ECONOMICALLY 
              DISADVANTAGED INDIVIDUALS.

    (a) In General.--Section 8(a)(6) of the Small Business Act (15 
U.S.C. 637(a)(6)) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
subparagraph:
    ``(F)(i) Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of 
this subparagraph, and not less frequently than every 4 years 
thereafter, the Administrator shall assess and, if appropriate, revise 
the maximum value of asset and the maximum net worth an individual may 
have to qualify as an economically disadvantaged individual under 
subparagraph (A) to account for changes in the economy, including 
inflation and other factors as determined appropriate by the 
Administrator.
                    ``(ii) The Administrator shall make each covered 
                revision by issuing a rule after an opportunity for 
                public notice and comment.
                    ``(iii) To the extent practicable, the 
                Administrator shall coordinate the activities carried 
                out under clause (i) with the activities required under 
                section 1344(a)(2) of the Small Business Jobs Act of 
                2010 (15 U.S.C. 632 note).
                    ``(iv) In this subparagraph, the term `covered 
                revision' means a revision described in clause (i) that 
                the Administrator determines is appropriate pursuant to 
                an assessment under such clause.''.
    (b) Compliance With Cutgo.--No additional amounts are authorized to 
be appropriated to carry out this Act or the amendments made by this 
Act.

            Passed the House of Representatives February 28, 2024.

            Attest:

                                             KEVIN F. MCCUMBER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-4854

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GREGORY CARLOS HOPKINS, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Robert C. Chambers, District Judge. (CR-00-75) Submitted: April 30, 2001 Decided: May 16, 2001 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mary Lou Newberger, Acting Federal Public Defender, Brian J. Kornbrath, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Rebecca A. Betts, United States Attorney, John L. File, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Gregory Carlos Hopkins appeals the sentence imposed on his conviction after a jury trial for threatening a federal informantin violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1513(b)(2) (West 2000). Specifically, Hopkins disputes the district court’s application of an eightlevel increase under USSG § 2J1.2(b)(1) for threatening to cause physical injury in order to obstruct the administration of justice. After a thorough review of the briefs, presentence report, and transcripts before this court, we conclude that the district court committed no error in applying § 2J.2(b)(1). See United States v. Weston , 960 F.2d 212, 218 (1st Cir. 1992); see also United States v. Cunningham , 54 F.3d 295, 302 (7th Cir. 1995). Hopkins’ claim to this effect is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm Hopkins’ conviction and sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Christopher MOSBY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Eric SYKES; Steve Lenaier; Chris Sasser; Charlie Miller; John Ingram; Unknown Officer, Defendants-Appellees, and Brunswick County Sheriff's Department, Defendant.

No. 17-6306

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 20, 2017

Decided: July 24, 2017

Christopher Mosby, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher J. Geis, WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE *&*RICE, PLLC, Winston-Salem, North Carolina; Patrick Grayson Spaugh, WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees.

*756Before DUNCAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Christopher Mosby appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Mosb/s motions for appointment of counsel and for return of property and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Mosby v. Sykes,*No. 5:15-ct-03202-BO (E.D.N.C., Feb. 23, 2017). 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.

*AFFIRMED*
#### Ellen Hendrickson, Ex’trix, etc., Respondent, *v.*John Kelly, Sheriff, etc., et al., Appellants.

(Argued April 1, 1872;

decided April 9, 1872.)

*A. J. Vcmderjooel*for the appellants.

*Frcmcis Kernan*for the respondent.

Agree to affirm. No opinion.
FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T J ANUARY 15, 2009 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [ D O N O T P U B L I S H ]

I N T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C I R C U I T

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ N o

. 0 8

- 1 2 7 7 4 N o n
- A r g u m e n t C a l e n d a r

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ D

. C

. D o c k e t N o

. 0 5

- 0 0 3 2 1

- C R

- W S

U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A ,

P l a i n t i f f

- A p p e l l e e ,

v e r s u s

E A R L L A P R A D E M I L L E R , I I I , a

. k

. a

. B o o m i e ,
D e f e n d a n t

- A p p e l l a n t

.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A p p e a l f r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e S o u t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f A l a b a m a

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ( J a n u a r y 1 5 , 2 0 0 9 )

B e f o r e D U B I N A , P R Y O R a n d K R A V I T C H , C i r c u i t J u d g e s

.
P E R C U R I A M :

A r t h u r J

. M a d d e n , I I I , a p p o i n t e d c o u n s e l f o r E a r l L a p r a d e M i l l e r , I I I , i n t h i sd i r e c t c r i m i n a l a p p e a l , h a s m o v e d t o w i t h d r a w f r o m f u r t h e r r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e

a p p e l l a n t a n d f

i l e d a b r i e f p u r s u a n t t o A n d e r s v
. C a l i f o r n i a , 3 8 6 U

. S

. 7 3 8 , 8 7 S

. C t

.
1 3 9 6 , 1 8 L

. E d

. 2 d 4 9 3 ( 1 9 6 7 )

. O u r i n d e p e n d e n t r e v i e w o f t h e e n t i r e r e c o r d r e v e a l s

t h a t c o u n s e l ’ s a s s e s s m e n t o f t h e r e l a t i v e m e r i t o f t h e a p p e a l i s c o r r e c t a n d t h e r e a r e

n o a r g u a b l e i s s u e s o f m e r i t

. T h e r e f o r e , c o u n s e l ’ s m o t i o n t o w i t h d r a w i s
G R A N T E D , a n d M i l l e r ’ s c o n v i c t i o n a n d s e n t e n c e a r e A F F I R M E D

.

2
#### James Michael MURPHY, MD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nita GOSS, in her individual capacity as Health Professionals Program Coordinator, Oregon Medical Board; W. Kent Williamson, in his individual capacity as Board Chair of Oregon Medical Board; Kathleen Haley, as the Executive Director of the Oregon Medical Board, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-35397

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 7, 2017* Portland, Oregon

Filed July 11, 2017

Marianne G. Dugan, Attorney, Eugene, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Dustin Buehler, Oregon Department of Justice, Salem, OR, for Defendants-Appel-lees

Before: TASHIMA, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Dr. James Murphy appeals a district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants Nita Goss, W. Kent *637Williamson, and Kathleen Haley on Murphy’s due process and equal protection claims. Dr. Murphy contends that Defendants knowingly made a false statement when reporting Dr. Murphy’s discipline by the Oregon Medical Board to the National Practitioner Data Bank (Data Bank). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

The district court did not err in concluding that Defendants are immune from liability under 42 U.S.C. § 11137(c). The record contains no evidence that Defendants knew that any information Goss submitted to the Data Bank in relation to Dr. Murphy’s discipline was false.

AFFIRMED.

**

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

                                                                   Exhibit 10.1

                CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

   We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Selected
Financial Data" in this Annual Report (Form 20-F) for the year ended December
31, 2001, and to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
on Form F-3 (File No. 333-13802) and Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File
Nos. 333-06850, 333-11384, 333-12326, 333-13224, 333-13330 and 333-13494)
pertaining to the Executive Share Option Scheme, the 1997 Share Option Scheme,
as amended, the 1997 Director Share Option Scheme and the 1999 Employee Stock
Purchase Plan of IONA Technologies PLC, the 1997 Stock Plan of Genesis
Development Corporation, the Stock Plan of Object-Oriented Concepts, Inc. and
the 1999 Stock Option Plan of Netfish Technologies, Inc., of our report dated
January 22, 2002, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of IONA
Technologies PLC included in this Annual Report (Form 20-F) for the year ended
December 31, 2001.

                                          ERNST & YOUNG

Dublin, Ireland
May 31, 2002
<PAGE>


EXHIBIT 99.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

GA Financial, Inc.

   In connection with the Quarterly Report of GA Financial, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John M. Kish, Chief
Executive 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
      as of and for the period covered by the Report.

   /s/ John M. Kish
   -----------------------------
   John M. Kish
   Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
   August 14, 2002
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 696 

To direct the United States Postal Service to designate a single, unique 

ZIP Code for Eastvale, California. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 1, 2023 

Mr. CALVERT (for himself and Mrs. TORRES of California) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability 

A BILL 

To direct the United States Postal Service to designate a 

single, unique ZIP Code for Eastvale, California. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SINGLE, UNIQUE ZIP CODE FOR EASTVALE, 

4 CALIFORNIA. 

5 Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment 

6 of this section, the United States Postal Service shall des7 ignate a single, unique ZIP Code applicable to the area 

8 encompassing solely Eastvale, California. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
#### Joseph Moskowitz, Appellant, *v.*Leon Feuer, as Executor of Joseph Feuer, Deceased, Respondent.

Argued May 17, 1943;

decided July 20, 1943.

*570
      *Jacob H. Gilbert, Susan Brandéis*and *Harold L. Crossman*for appellant.

*Edgar R. Kraetzer*and *Herbert M. Statt*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Rippey, Lewis, Conway, Desmond and Thacher, JJ.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of ArthroCare
Corporation (the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:



| | (i) | The accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the three months ended March 31, 2009 (the Report) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                         |  |                                                  
|------------------------ |  | -------------------------------------------------
|Dated: November 18, 2009 |  | /s/ Todd Newton                                  
|                         |  | Todd Newton                                      
|                         |  | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 906), or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of the written statement required by
Section 906, has been provided to ArthroCare Corporation and will be retained by ArthroCare Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

IN THE INTEREST OF: C.R., A MINOR

PETITION OF: A.C.-R., FATHER

:

:

:

:

:

No. 245 EAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

IN THE INTEREST OF: C.A.R., A MINOR

PETITION OF: A.C.-R., FATHER

:

:

:

:

:

No. 246 EAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

IN THE INTEREST OF: T.R., A MINOR

PETITION OF: A.C.-R., FATHER

:

:

:

:

:

No. 247 EAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

IN THE INTEREST OF: T.A.R., A MINOR

PETITION OF: A.C.-R., FATHER

:

:

:

:

:

No. 248 EAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 1st day of November, 2022, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
#### WALTER MORGAN *v.*THE STATE.

Appeal from Travis county.

*Implied Malice.*— The court below charged as follows : “The law implies malice from the unlawful killing of a human being, unless the circumstances make it *evident*that the killing was either justifiable, or, if not justifiable, was so mitigated as to reduce the offense below murder in the second degree.” Held, error, as it impinges the doctrine of reasonable doubt. Reversed and remanded.

Opinion by

Hurt, J.

N. B. — Upon another question presented iu this case the views of each of the judges are expressed in separate opinions. There being evidence of malpractice by the attending physicians, Judges Will-son and White hold that, under the provisions of Arts. 547-548, Penal Code, if it appears that there has been any gross neglect or manifestly improper treatment of the party injured by the physicians nurse or attendants, it is not homicide in Mm who inflicts the *314first injury. That the code changes and does not follow the common law upon this subject. Hurt, J., contra.