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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>        
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS      
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         108,948
<SECURITIES>                                     9,203
<RECEIVABLES>                                   30,347
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      3,949
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               179,519
<PP&E>                                          47,442
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 608,512
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          166,579
<BONDS>                                         75,104
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           353
<OTHER-SE>                                     366,476
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   608,512
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                51,541
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   42,419
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,649
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,473
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,301
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,172
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,172
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.12
        

</TABLE>
### Thompson, Coe, Cousins & Irons, L.L.P. Attorneys and Counselors

One Riverwa y | Suite 1400 | Houston, TX 77056 | ( 713 ) 403-8210 | Fax: ( 713 ) 403-8299 One Riverway | Suite 1400 | Houston, TX 77056 | (713) 403-8210 | Fax: (713) 403-8299 Andrew L. Johnson Direct Dial: (713) 403-8205 ajohnson@thompsoncoe.com Austin Dallas Houston Los Angeles

Saint Paul



## December 10, 2015

Christopher A. Prine, Clerk Fourteenth Court of Appeals 301 Fannin, Suite 245 Houston, Texas 77002

Re: No. 14-14-00859-CV; American Risk Insurance Co mpany, Inc. v. Veronica Serpikova; In the Court of Appeals for the Four teenth District of Texas, Houston Trial Court No.: 2013-14955

Dear Mr. Prine:

This correspondence is to advise the Cour t and Appellee that Andrew L. Johnson will present oral argument on behalf of Appellant American Risk Insurance on Tuesday, December 15, 2015. This is a change from A ppellant’s earlier letter indicati ng that Kevin F. Risley will present oral argument.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

/s/ Andrew L. Johnson

Andrew L. Johnson ACCEPTED 14-14-00859-CV FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS 12/10/2015 1:19:35 PM CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK
# EUR-Lex - 32002R1470 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32002R1470

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 1470/2002 of 13 August 2002 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables **

*
Official Journal L 219 , 14/08/2002 P. 0001 - 0002 *

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1470/2002

of 13 August 2002

establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 of 21 December 1994 on detailed rules for the application of the import arrangements for fruit and vegetables(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1498/98(2), and in particular Article 4(1) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations, the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products and periods stipulated in the Annex thereto.

(2) In compliance with the above criteria, the standard import values must be fixed at the levels set out in the Annex to this Regulation,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The standard import values referred to in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 shall be fixed as indicated in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 14 August 2002.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 13 August 2002.

For the Commission

J. M. Silva Rodríguez

Agriculture Director-General

(1) OJ L 337, 24.12.1994, p. 66.

(2) OJ L 198, 15.7.1998, p. 4.

ANNEX

to the Commission Regulation of 13 August 2002 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

>TABLE>
**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**
  I,
        Terry
        Desjardins, of Heritage Explorations, Inc. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant
        to
        Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
        that:
  (1)
              The
                  annual report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the year ended
                  August 31,
                  2007 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
                  13(a)
                  of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m);
                  and
  (2)
              The
                  information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
                  respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
                  the
                  Company.
  
  By:  /s/
          Terry Desjardins
 Terry
          Desjardins
 President
          and Secretary
 Principal
          Executive Officer
 November
        28, 2007
 
  
  A
        signed
        original of this written statement required by s. 906 has been provided to
        the
        Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
        and
        Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 15-279V

Filed: December 21, 2015

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

BRITTANY STALLINGS BENOIT, * UNPUBLISHED

as mother and natural guardian, and *

ARSENE BENOIT, as father and natural *

guardian of GABRIEL CASH BENOIT, * Special Master Hamilton-Fieldman

*

Petitioners, *

*

v. *

 * Voluntary dismissal under

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Vaccine Rule 21(a).

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

 *

 Respondent. *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Jeffrey S. Pop, Beverly Hills, CA, for Petitioners.

Glenn MacLeod, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

ORDER CONCLUDING PROCEEDINGS1

On March 18, 2015, Brittany Stallings and Arsene Benoit (“Petitioners”) filed a petition 

for compensation on behalf of their minor son, Gabriel Cash Benoit, under the National 

Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 et seq. (2006) (“Vaccine Act”). 

Petitioners alleged that the administration of Diphtheria-Tetanus-acellular- Pertussis (“DTaP”), 

Haemophilus influenza type B (“HiB”), Polio, Pneumococcal, Rotavirus, and Hepatitis B (“Hep 

B”) vaccines on March 29, 2013 caused Gabriel Benoit to suffer from injuries that resulted in his 

death.

 1 Because this unpublished Order contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the 

undersigned intends to post this decision on the United States Court of Federal Claims’ website, 

in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 

2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 and note (2006)). In accordance with Vaccine 

Rule 18(b), a party has 14 days to identify and move to delete medical or other information, that 

satisfies the criteria in § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B). Further, consistent with the rule requirement, a 

motion for redaction must include a proposed redacted decision. If, upon review, the 

undersigned agrees that the identified material fits within the requirements of that provision, such 

material will be deleted from public access. 
2

On November 13, 2015, the undersigned issued a Notice informing Petitioners that 240 

days had passed since their petition was filed, and that they had the option of continuing or 

withdrawing their petition. On December 14, 2015, Petitioners filed a Notice of Withdrawal of 

the Petition pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-21(b).

Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 21(a), the above-captioned case is hereby dismissed. The 

Clerk of Court is hereby instructed that a judgment shall not enter in the instant case pursuant 

to Vaccine Rule 21(a).

CONCLUSION

Proceedings are concluded in this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Lisa D. Hamilton-Fieldman

 Lisa D. Hamilton-Fieldman

Special Master
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from MoneyGram
Payment Systems, Inc.'s Form 10-Q for the period September 30, 1997 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                              26,993
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        9,380
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    58,133
<PP&E>                                              10,201
<DEPRECIATION>                                       8,221
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     135,393
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               36,671
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                               166
<OTHER-SE>                                          98,556
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       135,393
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   107,188
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       91,824
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     15,364
<INCOME-TAX>                                         6,072
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       9,292
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                         9,292
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          .56
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          .56
                                                   


</TABLE>
#### Temesgen Teshome ABDISSA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNC CHAPEL HILL, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-1078

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 18, 2017

Decided: May 24, 2017

Temesgen Teshome Abdissa, Appellant Pro Se. Melissa Lou Trippe, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appel-lee.

Before AGEE, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*743PER CURIAM:

Temesgen Teshome Abdissa appeals the district court’s order and judgment dismissing his employment discrimination complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Abdissa v. UNC Chapel Hill,*No. 5:15-cv-00394-BO, 2017 WL 78479 (E.D.N.C. Jan. 6, 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*
#### Henrietta OKORO; Cyriacus Okoro, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; Wells Fargo Home Mortgage Inc.; Hudson City Savings Bank, FSB; M&T Bank; M&T Corporation, Successor by merger to Hudson City Savings Bank, FSB and owner of M&T Bank; Federal National Mortgage Assn.; The Alba Law Group, P.A., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-2274

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 27, 2017

Decided: April 7, 2017

Henrietta Okoro; Cyriacus Okoro, Appellants Pro Se. Douglas Brooks Riley, TREANOR, POPE & HUGHES, PA, Towson, Maryland; David Edwin Solan, BWW LAW GROUP, LLC, Rockville, Maryland; Alvin Frederick, Lauren Elizabeth Marini, ECCLESTON & WOLF, PC, Hanover, Maryland, for Appellees.

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Henrietta Okoro and Cyriacus Okoro appeal the district court’s order dismissing their complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the district court. Okoro v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 8:16-cv-00616-PX, 2016 WL 5870031 (D. Md. filed Oct. 6, 2016 & entered Oct. 7, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this *325court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Felix Omar CASTILLO-ANDINO, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-40915 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed April 7, 2017

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Felix Omar Castillo-Andino has moved for leave to 'withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Castillo-Andino has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this 9pinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### Kevin L. WOLFE Plaintiff-Appellant v. Nancy A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Defendant-Appellee

No. 16-4469

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: September 26, 2017

Filed: September 29, 2017

Joel E. Fenton, Law Office of Joel E. Fenton, PLC, Des Moines, IA, for Plaintiff-Appellant

William C. Purdy, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Des Moines, IA, Marisa Silverman, Social Security Administration, Office of General Counsel Region VI, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appel-lee

Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Kevin L. Wolfe appeals the district court’s1 order upholding the denial of disability insurance benefits. This court reviews de novo the district court’s decision affirming the denial of benefits, examining whether the administrative law judge’s (ALJ) decision is supported by substantial *890evidence on the record as a whole. See Igo v. Colvin, 839 F.3d 724, 728 (8th Cir. 2016). We find no merit to Wolfe’s challenges to the ALJ’s credibility findings. See Julin v. Colvin, 826 F.3d 1082, 1086 (8th Cir. 2016) (noting that credibility findings are ALJ’s province, and, so long as they are supported by “good reasons and substantial evidence,” this court will defer to those findings (quoting Guilliams v. Barnhart, 393 F.3d 798, 801 (8th Cir. 2006))). We also find no merit to Wolfe’s challenges to the ALJ’s determination of his mental residual functional capacity (RFC), because the ALJ’s reasons for discounting the opinion of Wolfe’s treating psychiatrist were valid, see Perkins v. Astrue, 648 F.3d 892, 897-99 (8th Cir. 2011) (holding that treating physician’s opinion does not automatically control, as record must be evaluated as whole; it is permissible for ALJ to discount treating physician’s opinion that is inconsistent with his own notes); and the mental RFC determination was consistent with the medical evidence, see Boyd v. Colvin, 831 F.3d 1015, 1020 (8th Cir. 2016) (explaining that “it is the responsibility of the ALJ, and not a physician, to determine a claimant’s RFC” based on all relevant evidence: medical records, observations of treating physicians and others, and claimant’s own description of his limitations); Hensley v. Colvin, 829 F.3d 926, 931-32 (8th Cir. 2016) (stating that the claimant bears the burden of demonstrating RFC, which must be supported by some medical evidence, but there is no requirement that finding be supported by specific medical opinion). The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

1

. The Honorable Ronald E. Longstaff, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa, now retired.
EXHIBIT 32

                                CERTIFICATION OF
                             CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                              OF GASCO ENERGY, INC.
                         PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350

      In  connection  with the  accompanying  amendment to the Annual  Report of
Gasco Energy,  Inc. (the  "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended  December
31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"),  I, Mark A. Erickson,  Chief  Executive  Officer of the Company,
hereby certify, to my knowledge, 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.


                                           /s/ Mark A. Erickson
                                           --------------------
                                    Name:  Mark A. Erickson
                                    Date:  February 27, 2007

<PAGE>

                                CERTIFICATION OF
                             CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                              OF GASCO ENERGY, INC.
                         PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350

      In  connection  with the  accompanying  amendment to the Annual  Report of
Gasco Energy,  Inc. (the  "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended  December
31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, W. King Grant, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
certify, to my knowledge, 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.


                                           /s/ W. King Grant
                                           -----------------
                                    Name:  W. King Grant
                                    Date:  February 27, 2007
**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**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Gensym Corporation (the “Company”) for the period ended March 31, 2003as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Lowell B. Hawkinson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that: 

 

(1) The Report fully complies with therequirements 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 resultsof operations of the Company. 

 

 

A signedoriginal of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Gensym Corporation and will be retained by Gensym Corporation as furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Jeffrey A. PLEASANT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Wendell W. PIXLEY, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 16-7626

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 30, 2017

Decided: April 4, 2017

Jeffrey A. Pleasant, Appellant Pro Se.

Before TRAXLER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jeffrey A. Pleasant seeks to appeal the district court’s order construing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, and dismissing it as successive. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Pleasant’s notice of appeal was not timely filed.

In civil actions in which the federal government is not a party, parties are accorded 30 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[Tjhe timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on September 15, 2016. The notice of appeal was filed on November 10, 2016. Although the district court erroneously informed Pleasant that he had 60 days to appeal, the jurisdictional nature of the filing requirement and Pleasant’s failure to file a timely notice of appeal deprive this court of jurisdiction. See id. at 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360 (“[TJhis Court has no authority to create equitable exceptions to jurisdictional requirements.”). Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauper-is and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED