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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule contains summary information extracted from the Condensed
     Consolidated Balance Sheets and Condensed Consolidated Statements of
     Earnings as reported on the second quarter Form 10-Q and is qualified in
     its entirety by reference to such financial statements
</LEGEND>

<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         JAN-29-2000
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                              JUL-31-1999
<CASH>                                        259,000
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 172,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                 2,304,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            2,843,000
<PP&E>                                      5,947,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              1,690,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              8,211,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       2,875,000
<BONDS>                                     1,221,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                       30,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  3,530,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                8,211,000
<SALES>                                     4,370,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            4,370,000
<CGS>                                       3,027,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              132,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             39,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                46,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   17,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            29,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                   29,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                     .12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .12




</TABLE>
Exhibit 99.1

                     CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

  Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

    The undersigned executive officer of Jacksonville Bancorp, Inc., (the
"Registrant") hereby certifies that the Registrant's Form 10-Q for the nine
months ended June 30, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
contained therein fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Registrant.


                                   /s/ Jerry M. Chancellor
                                   --------------------------------------------
                                   Name: Jerry M. Chancellor
                                   Title: President and Chief Executive Officer

Date: August 7, 2002






























                                    -19-
Exhibit 23

 

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

To the Board of Directors of HSBC Finance Corporation:

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement No. 333-131714-03 on Form S-3  of HSBC Automotive Trust (USA) 2006-3 of our reports dated March 5, 2007 included as Exhibits 34.1, 34.2, 34.3, 34.4 and 34.5 in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of HSBC Automotive Trust (USA) 2006-3 for the year ended December 31, 2006.

 

/s/ KPMG LLP

 

Chicago, Illinois

March 28, 2007
#### Lavarn C. WATSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GOVERNOR OF GEORGIA, Administration of the Judicial System of Georgia, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-15427 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(October 20, 2017)

Lavarn C. Watson, Pro Se

Before HULL, MARCUS and WILSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Lavarn C. Watson, a non-prisoner litigant proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his complaint brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of the First, Eighth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments, as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). On appeal, Watson does not address this dismissal or argue that it was error. After thorough review, we affirm.

The district court “shall dismiss” a case filed IFP if the court determines that the action is frivolous or malicious. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). A determination of frivolity is a matter within the discretion of the district court, and we will review these determinations only for abuse of discretion. Bilal v. Driver, 251 F.3d 1346, 1349 (11th Cir. 2001).

A claim is frivolous if it is without arguable merit in either fact or law. Id. Even if the complaint legally states a claim and the facts are not fantastic, dismissal on grounds of frivolousness might nonetheless be justified. Clark v. State of Ga. Pardons & Paroles Bd., 915 F.2d 636, 640 (11th Cir. 1990). For example, if the district court concludes that an affirmative defense would defeat the action, the action may be dismissed as frivolous. Id.

Although we construe pro se briefs liberally, we will not act as de facto counsel for litigants, and a pro se litigant who offers no substantive argument on an issue in his brief abandons the issue on appeal. Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008); see also Denney v. City of *910Albany, 247 F.3d 1172, 1182 (11th Cir. 2001) (deeming issue abandoned where plaintiffs made a single reference to the issue in their brief, did not discuss district court’s analysis on that issue, and did not make any legal or factual argument as to why district court’s decision was in error). A party fails adequately to brief a claim when he does not plainly and prominently raise it, for instance, by devoting a discrete section of his argument to that claim. Cole v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 712 F.3d 517, 530 (11th Cir. 2013). Passing references to an issue do not suffice. Greenbriar, Ltd. v. City of Alabaster, 881 F.2d 1570, 1573 n.6 (11th Cir. 1989).

On appeal, Watson restates his claims that the defendants violated his constitutional rights by keeping the courtroom door locked, denying him access to the courts, restricting his movement, and segregating the courtroom. Watson does not address the district court’s dismissal of his complaint. Notably, he does not assert that his claims were not frivolous, nor does he discuss the affirmative immunity defenses cited by the district court as the reason for dismissal. Therefore, he has abandoned any claim he might have had that this dismissal was an abuse of discretion, and we affirm. See Timson, 518 F.3d at 874; Denney, 247 F.3d at 1182.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 31(ii)
                                       --------------



                                       CERTIFICATIONS
                                       ---------------

      I, Steve Bailey, certify that:


               1.   I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on
                    Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period
                    covered by this report on Form 10-K of Alternative Loan
                    Trust 2006-OA18 (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");

               2.   Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports,
                    taken as a whole, do 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 report;

               3.   Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing
                    and other information required to be provided under Form
                    10-D for the period covered by this report is included in
                    the Exchange Act periodic reports;

               4.   I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by
                    the servicer(s) and based on my knowledge and the compliance
                    review(s) conducted in preparing the servicer compliance
                    statement(s) required in this report under Item 1123 of
                    Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act
                    periodic reports, the servicer(s) have fulfilled their
                    obligations under the servicing agreement(s) in all material
                    respects; and

               5.   All of the reports on assessment of compliance with
                    servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their
                    related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with
                    servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to
                    be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of
                    Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have
                    been included as an exhibit to this report, except as
                    otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances
                    of noncompliance described in such reports have been
                    disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.


                    In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied
                    on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated
                    parties: The Bank of New York, as Trustee and Residential
                    Funding Company, LLC.

      Date: March 27, 2007


             /s/ Steve Bailey
             --------------------------
             Steve Bailey
             Senior Managing Director, Loan Administration
H. R. 651 

One Hundred Fourteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, 

the sixth day of January, two thousand and fifteen 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 820 Elmwood 

Avenue in Providence, Rhode Island, as the ‘‘Sister Ann Keefe Post Office’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SISTER ANN KEEFE POST OFFICE. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 820 Elmwood Avenue in Providence, Rhode 

Island, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Sister Ann Keefe 

Post Office’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Sister Ann Keefe Post Office’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
**Exhibit 35.1**

**SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENTCAPITAL ONE AUTO FINANCE TRUST 2006-C**

Capital One Auto FinanceTrust 2006-C

Capital One Auto Finance, Inc.

c/o 1680 Capital One Drive

McLean, Virginia 22102

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Capital One AutoFinance Trust 2006-C for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2006 (the “Report”),the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Capital One Auto Finance, Inc.(the “Servicer”), does hereby certify and represent that:

1.               A review of the activities and performance ofthe Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of November 22,2006, by and between Capital One Auto Finance Trust 2006-C, as Issuer, CapitalOne Auto Receivables, LLC, as Seller, The Bank of New York, as Indenture Trustee,and the Servicer (the “Agreement”) during the period that is the subject of theReport has been made under my supervision.

2.             To the best of my knowledge, based on suchreview, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement inall material respects throughout the period that is the subject of the Report.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, theundersigned has duly executed this Servicer Compliance Statement this 28th day of March, 2007

CAPITAL ONE AUTO FINANCE,INC.
| By:    |   | /s/ David R. Lawson     |   |   |
|--------|--------|-------------------------|--------|--------|
| Name:  |   | David R. Lawson         |   |   |
| Title: |   | Chief Executive Officer |   |   |

** **

----
# EUR-Lex - 32001D0301 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32001D0301

**2001/301/EC: Commission Decision of 11 April 2001 amending Decision 92/486/EEC establishing the form of cooperation between the ANIMO host centre and the Member States (Text with EEA relevance) (notified under document number C(2001) 1100) **

*
Official Journal L 102 , 12/04/2001 P. 0073 - 0073 *

Commission Decision

of 11 April 2001

amending Decision 92/486/EEC establishing the form of cooperation between the ANIMO host centre and the Member States

(notified under document number C(2001) 1100)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2001/301/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990 concerning the veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Community trade in certain live animals and products with a view to the completion of the internal market(1), as last amended by Directive 92/118/EEC(2), and in particular Article 20(3) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Various Community studies and seminars indicate that the ANIMO network architecture should be reviewed with a view to establishing a veterinary system that includes all the different computerised applications used.

(2) Decision 92/486/EEC of 25 September 1992 establishing the form of cooperation between the ANIMO host centre and the Member States(3), as last amended by Decision 2000/288/EC(4), should be amended accordingly so as to guarantee the continuity of the ANIMO network.

(3) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following paragraph 6 is added to Article 2a of Decision 92/486/EEC: "6. For the period from 1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002, the coordination authorities provided for in Article 1 shall ensure that the contracts referred to in that Article are extended for one year.

The following charge shall apply in respect of this paragraph:

- ECU 386 per unit (central unit, local unit, frontier inspection post) for all the ANIMO units listed in Decision 2000/287/EC(5)."

Article 2

This Decision shall apply from 1 April 2001.

Article 3

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 11 April 2001.

For the Commission

David Byrne

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 224, 18.8.1990, p. 29.

(2) OJ L 62, 15.3.1993, p. 49.

(3) OJ L 291, 7.10.1992, p. 20.

(4) OJ L 98, 19.4.2000, p. 37.

(5) OJ L 98, 19.4.2000, p. 12.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

FELIPE D.J. MILLAN,

Appellant,

v.

CLAUDIA MILLAN,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 16

- 00314

- CV

Appeal from

County Court at Law No. 3

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC # 2015DCV0253 )

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes the appeal should be

dismissed for want of jurisdiction, in accordance with the opinion of this Court. We therefore

dismiss the appeal. We further order Appellant to pay all costs of this ap peal. We further order

that this decision be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 25 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2017

.

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.

Hughes, J., not participating
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tracer CHOVANAK, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-30184

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 13, 2017 *

Filed July 17, 2017

Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, Billings, MT, Paulette Lynn Stewart, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USHE—Office of the US Attorney, Helena, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Tracer Chovanak, Pro Se

Before: HUG, FARRIS, and CANBY, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Tracer Chovanak appeals from the district court’s order denying his Motion for Reduction of Sentence Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582. Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Chovanak’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Chovanak the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se *707supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal. •

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Delano ESPINDOLA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 80-1739.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted April 24, 1981.

Decided July 13, 1981.

*1065Steven K. Christensen, Hilo, Hawaii, for defendant-appellant.

Stephen D. Tom, Asst. U. S. Atty., Honolulu, Hawaii, argued for plaintiff-appellee; Melvin K. Soong, Asst. U. S. Atty., Honolulu, Hawaii, on brief.

Before KILKENNY, SNEED and PAR-RIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to overturn an order revoking his probation on the ground that inasmuch as his probationary period had expired, the district court had no jurisdiction to entertain a petition to revoke it. The government insists the period had not expired and that, as a consequence, the district court did not lack jurisdiction. We agree with the government and affirm the judgment.

The issue is whether under the facts of this case appellant’s probation period of five years expired on August 4,1980. Appellant argues that it did and that an effort to revoke that probation commenced on August 6, 1980 comes too late. The facts are simple. On August 4, 1975, appellant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment on condition that he serve two months and remain on probation for five years. The court ordered the period of “probation to commence upon release from confinement” (CT 8). At appellant’s request, confinement was stayed for a period of two weeks. On August 18, 1975, appellant was confined. On September 22,1975 appellant’s sentence was modified to reduce his period of confinement to 35 days, the amount of time already served, and appellant was released from confinement.

Appellant relies on *United States v. Rosenstreich,*204 F.2d 321 (2d Cir. 1953), to establish that probation commences when the sentence is imposed, while the government argues that *United States v. Bartholdi,*453 F.2d 1225 (9th Cir. 1972), recognizes that the sentencing court may provide otherwise which, the government points out, was done in this case.

It is not necessary that we adopt either position unqualifiedly. We express no opinion regarding the commencement of probation when confinement follows sentencing in the ordinary manner. That did not happen in this case, however. At the request of the plaintiff mittimus, or warrant of commitment, was stayed for two weeks. Under these circumstances and for the purposes of this case, probation should be deemed to commence at the earliest no sooner than August 18, 1975. We so hold. The appellant should not be able to commence the running of the period of probation at the date of sentencing when confinement at his request is delayed until a later date.

The court revoking appellant’s probation had jurisdiction to do so. The probationary period had not expired.

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 791 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 791

 To provide that certain civil defense employees and employees of the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency may be eligible for certain public 
        safety officers death benefits, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                 May 11 (legislative day, May 1), 1995

 Mr. Cochran (for himself and Mr. Lott) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide that certain civil defense employees and employees of the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency may be eligible for certain public 
        safety officers death benefits, 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. PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS DEATH BENEFITS FOR CIVIL DEFENSE 
              EMPLOYEES.

    (a) In General.--Section 1204(7) of the Omnibus Crime Control and 
Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796b(7)) is amended by striking 
``or rescue squad or ambulance crew'' and inserting ``rescue squad or 
ambulance crew, or an employee of the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency and employees of State and local emergency management and civil 
defense agencies.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect on the date of enactment of this Act and shall apply only 
to employees of the Federal Emergency Management Agency and employees 
of State and local emergency management and civil defense agencies who 
are injured or die in the line of duty on or after such date.
                                 <all>
```