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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-02-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-04-1998
<CASH>                                           8,494
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   19,652
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    159,849
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               226,384
<PP&E>                                         647,558
<DEPRECIATION>                                 360,980
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 698,707
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          205,995
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           68,865
<PREFERRED>                                      9,695
<COMMON>                                             4
<OTHER-SE>                                   (191,306)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   698,527
<SALES>                                      1,432,963
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,432,963
<CGS>                                        1,058,083
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,395,910
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   544
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              48,273
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (11,764)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (3,880)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,884)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,884)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (33.43)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (33.43)
        

</TABLE>
#### Octavio HUERTA, Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNITED STATES of America; Jefferson B. Sessions, III, U.S. Attorney General; James B. Comey; Steven T. Mnuchin, Secretary, U.S. Department of Treasury, Defendants-Appellees

No. 16-50410 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed June 19, 2017

Octavio Huerta, Pro Se

Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The judgment of the district court is affirmed for the reasons given by the court and the Magistrate Judge and for failing to serve process on any named defendant.

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
### FOR PUBLICATION


### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT



#  In re: S ILVER S TATE H ELICOPTERS , LLC. No. 08-80165
D.C. No. W ESTERN A IRCRAFT , I NC ., 08-cv-1397-RLH



#  Petitioner, B. Ct. No.

08-10936-MKN v. ORDER J AMES F. L ISOWSKI , S R .,

Trustee-Respondent. 

# 

On Petition for Permission to Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(2)

Submitted February 23, 2009

Filed May 28, 2009

Before: Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge, and Michael Daly Hawkins, Circuit Judge.

COUNSEL

Matthew C. Zirzow and Gerald M. Gordon, Gordon & Silver Ltd., Las Vegas, Nevada; Jerry Hall, Jr. and Patrick Potter, Pillsbury Wintrop Shaw Pitman LLP, Washington, D.C., for the petitioner.

Victoria Nelson and Ogonna M. Atamoh, Santoro Driggs Walch Kearney Johnson & Thompson, Las Vegas, Nevada, for the trustee-respondent.

6329ORDER

In the instant case, Western Aircraft ( “Western ”) leased commercial real estate to Silver State Helicopters ( “Silver State”). Silver State later filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy relief. After the trustee was appointed, Western demanded that the trustee pay the rent that had accrued under the lease for the first 60 days following Silver State’s filing of the bankruptcy petition. The trustee failed to pay the rent. Western moved the bankruptcy court for an order requiring the rental payment. See 11 U.S.C. § 365(d)(3). The bankruptcy court denied Western’s motion, reasoning that the timing of performanceunder section 365(d)(3) is within the discretion of the bankruptcy court.
The bankruptcy court has certified for appeal the question whether section 365(d)(3) requires the immediate payment of accrued rent.

Because we conclude the order at issue is fully within the discretion of the bankruptcy court, and resolution of the underlying issue (whether section 365(d)(3) requires theimmediate payment of accrued rent) is unlikely to have a substantial impact on the ongoing proceedings, the petition for permission to appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(2) is denied. 6330 I N RE S ILVER S TATE H ELICOPTERSPRINTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE—U.S. COURTS BY THOMSON REUTERS/WEST—SAN FRANCISCO

The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted © 2009 Thomson Reuters/West.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6208
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAMES FELTON, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CR-93-88, CA-96-484-R) Submitted: January 15, 1998 Decided: January 27, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.James Felton, Appellant Pro Se. Ruth Elizabeth Plagenhoef, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion andfind no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Felton , Nos. CR-93-88; CA-96-484-R (W.D. Va. Jan. 22, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### Waseem DAKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Clerk of Court, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-16716-A

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Date Filed: 03/03/2017

R. Brian Tanner, Edward J. Tarver, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Savannah, GA, for Defendant-Appellee United States of America

Edward J. Tarver, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Savannah, GA, for Defendant-Appel-lee Clerk of Court

Before: MARCUS and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.

BY THE COURT:

This appeal is REMANDED IN FULL to the district court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 12.1, so that the district court may grant the relief described in its indicative ruling of January 4, 2017.

The district court dismissed Plaintiff-Appellant Waseem Daker’s complaint. The dismissal was partly based upon the court’s finding that Mr. Daker had not complied with a magistrate judge’s July 25, 2016 order, which directed Mr. Daker to provide financial disclosures by a certain deadline, later extended to September 9, 2016. These disclosures were required in order to determine whether Mr. Daker was eligible to proceed *informa pauperis.*Mr. Daker, however, argued more than once that he did provide the required disclosures before the deadline. Moreover, the financial statement that Mr. Daker filed was dated September 8,2016, one day before the deadline. As such, the record is unclear whether the district court’s premise—that Mr. Daker failed to comply with the magistrate’s July 25 order—-was correct.

After filing his notice of appeal, Mr. Daker moved the district court to vacate the judgment, arguing again that the court was mistaken in finding that he had failed *792to file his financial disclosures on time. Upon consideration of the motion, the district court recognized its possible error. The district court therefore issued an indicative ruling, stating that if we remanded the case, it would grant Mr. Daker’s motion and vacate the judgment based upon its possible misconstruction of the record. *See*Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a) & 62.1.

Accordingly, we hereby remand this action to the district court, so that the district court will have jurisdiction to grant Mr. Daker’s motion to vacate the judgment. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 12.1. Because there will no longer be a final order for us to review after the judgment is vacated, we decline to retain jurisdiction over the action.
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

** **

**LONG BEACH SECURITIES CORP. **

**RESTATED OFFICER’S CERTIFICATE**

 

I, Douglas A. Potolsky, certify that:

 

1.             I have reviewed this report on Form 10–K and all reports on Form 10–D required to befiled in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10–K of Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-10 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);

 

2.             Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain anyuntrue 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 beprovided under Form 10–D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4.             Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers 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-backedsecurities 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–18have 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:  Deutsche BankNational Trust Company.

 

 

 

Date:  As of March 15,2007

|   |   | /s/ Doug Potolsky                                                                            |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   | Name:  DougPotolsky                                                                     |
|   |   | Title:   President and Senior Officer in Charge of Securitization of the Depositor |
PowerCerv
        Corporation and Subsidiary
 Form
        10-QSB
  **EXHIBIT
        32.1**
 **CERTIFICATION**


**Pursuant
      to 18 United States Code Section 1350**





The
      undersigned hereby certifies that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the
      quarter ended March 31, 2005 of PowerCerv Corporation (the "Company") filed
      with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof fully complies with
      the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934, as amended, and that the information contained in such report fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.








/s/
      John
      D. Stanton


______________________________


John
      D
      Stanton


Chief
      Executive Officer


February
      16, 2006




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      PowerCerv Corporation and will be retained by it and furnished to the Securities
      and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# L_2009051DE.01001401.xml

| 24.2.2009 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 51/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.2.2009

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 51/14

---

Berichtigung der Richtlinie 2002/59/EG des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 27. Juni 2002 über die Einrichtung eines gemeinschaftlichen Überwachungs- und Informationssystems für den Schiffsverkehr und zur Aufhebung der Richtlinie 93/75/EWG des Rates

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 208 vom 5. August 2002
  )

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 208 vom 5. August 2002

Seite 12, Artikel 1 Absatz 2:

anstatt:

„Die Mitgliedstaaten überwachen und ergreifen alle erforderlichen und geeigneten Maßnahmen, um sicherzustellen, dass die Kapitäne, Betreiber oder Agenten von Schiffen sowie Verlader oder Eigentümer von gefährlichen oder umweltschädlichen Gütern, die an Bord der Schiffe befördert werden, die Anforderungen dieser Richtlinie erfüllen.“

muss es heißen:

„Die Mitgliedstaaten überwachen und ergreifen alle erforderlichen und geeigneten Maßnahmen, um sicherzustellen, dass die Kapitäne, Betreiber oder Agenten von Schiffen sowie Versender oder Eigentümer von gefährlichen oder umweltschädlichen Gütern, die an Bord der Schiffe befördert werden, die Anforderungen dieser Richtlinie erfüllen.“;

Seite 13, Artikel 3 Buchstabe d:

anstatt:

| „d) | „Verlader“ jede Person, durch die oder in deren Namen oder auf deren Rechnung mit einem Beförderer ein Vertrag zur Beförderung von Gütern geschlossen wird;“ |
| --- | --- |

„d)

„Verlader“ jede Person, durch die oder in deren Namen oder auf deren Rechnung mit einem Beförderer ein Vertrag zur Beförderung von Gütern geschlossen wird;“

muss es heißen:

| „d) | „Versender“ jede Person, durch die oder in deren Namen oder auf deren Rechnung mit einem Beförderer ein Vertrag zur Beförderung von Gütern geschlossen wird;“; |
| --- | --- |

„d)

„Versender“ jede Person, durch die oder in deren Namen oder auf deren Rechnung mit einem Beförderer ein Vertrag zur Beförderung von Gütern geschlossen wird;“;

Seite 16, Artikel 12 Titel:

anstatt:

„Pflichten des Verladers“

muss es heißen:

„Pflichten des Versenders“;

Seite 16, Artikel 12 Absatz 2:

anstatt:

„Der Verlader ist verpflichtet, dem Kapitän oder dem Betreiber die genannte Erklärung zu liefern und dafür zu sorgen, dass die zur Beförderung bereitgestellte Ladung tatsächlich derjenigen entspricht, die gemäß Absatz 1 deklariert wurde.“

muss es heißen:

„Der Versender ist verpflichtet, dem Kapitän oder dem Betreiber die genannte Erklärung zu liefern und dafür zu sorgen, dass die zur Beförderung bereitgestellte Ladung tatsächlich derjenigen entspricht, die gemäß Absatz 1 deklariert wurde.“

---
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-18-00635-CR

SONNY GUERRA III

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the

24th District Court of Jackson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 18-5-10081

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

July 18, 2019
#### Edward Earle BECK, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 21379.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 27, 1966.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 28, 1966.

William F. Walsh, Houston, Tex., for appellant.

James R. Gough, Asst. U. S. Atty., Woodrow Seals, U. S. Atty., Houston, Tex.,, for appellee.

Before JONES and DYER, Circuit Judges, and SPEARS, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

The consideration of this appeal leaves this Court with the firm conviction that the appellant did not receive a fair trial. Since the fundamental errors will not recur upon another trial, no useful purpose would be served by a discussion of them. So that a new trial may be had, the order of the district court denying the appellant’s motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 will be reversed and the cause remanded with directions to vacate the judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellant. It appears that the district court was without jurisdiction to enter any order denying appellant’s motion under Rule 33, Fed.Rules Crim. Proc. 18 U.S.C.A. and the appeal from that portion of the district court’s order is dismissed. That portion of the order denying the Section 2255 motion is

Reversed and remanded.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tanya Marie MORREO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-50170

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 8, 2017 *

Filed May 11, 2017

Alexandra Fairbanks Foster, Janaki Gandhi, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Ellis M. Johnston, III, Esquire, Trial Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

*993MEMORANDUM **

Tanya Marie Morreo appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 180-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for importation of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952, 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Morreo contends that the district court’s mitigating role analysis was legally flawed and resulted in the erroneous denial of her request for a minor role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. We review the district court’s interpretation of the Guidelines de novo, and its application of the Guidelines to the facts for abuse of discretion. *See United States v. Gasca-Ruiz,*852 F.3d 1167, 1170 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc). Contrary to Morreo’s contention, the record demonstrates that the district court properly compared her to her co-participants in the offense and considered the factors enumerated in the Guideline and the totality of the circumstances to determine whether Morreo was “substantially less culpable than the average participant.” *See*U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(A), (C); *United States v. Quintero-Leyva,*823 F.3d 519, 523 (9th Cir. 2016); *see also United States v. Carty,*520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (district judges are presumed to know the law and need not “tick' off’ all of the sentencing factors). Moreover, in light of the circumstances of the offense, the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Morreo was not a minor participant. *See Quintero-Leyva,*823 F.3d at 523 (the. court may consider factors other than those included in the commentary to the Guideline and may deny a reduction even if some of the factors support a contrary result).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed May 24, 

2022.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-22-00267-CV

ANETRAL HALL, Appellant

V.

WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY, FSB, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 4

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1180654

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an appeal from a judgment signed April 1, 2022. On May 5, 2022, 

appellant filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1. The 

motion is granted. 

We dismiss the appeal.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Bourliot, Hassan, and Wilson.
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 903

To designate the Nellis Federal hospital in Las Vegas, Nevada as the ‘‘Mike

O’Callaghan Military Hospital’’, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 9 (legislative day, JUNE 5), 1995

Mr. BRYAN (for himself and Mr. REID) introduced the following bill; which

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services

A BILL

To designate the Nellis Federal hospital in Las Vegas, Nevada as the ‘‘Mike O’Callaghan Military Hospital’’, and

for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF MIKE O’CALLAGHAN MILI4 TARY HOSPITAL.

5 The Nellis Federal hospital, a Federal building lo6 cated at 4700 North Las Vegas Boulevard, Las Vegas,

7 Nevada, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Mike

8 O’Callaghan Military Hospital’’.
2

•S 903 IS

1 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

2 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

3 paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal

4 building referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be

5 a reference to the ‘‘Mike O’Callaghan Military Hospital’’.

Æ
#### Jerry GANTT, Petitioner v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Respondent

2015-3115

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

April 18, 2017

Thomas Beenaed Coebin, Thomas B. Corbin . *&*Associates, LLC, Baltimore, MD, argued for petitioner.

Richard Paul Scheoedee, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for respondent. Also represented by Benjamin C. Mizer, Robert E. Kirschman, Jr., Deborah A. Bynum.

(Newman, O’Malley, and Reyna, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 765

To amend the Public Buildings Act of 1959 to require the Administrator

of General Services to prioritize construction and alteration projects

in accordance with merit-based needs criteria, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 8 (legislative day, MAY 1), 1995

Mr. MCCAIN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Governmental Affairs

A BILL

To amend the Public Buildings Act of 1959 to require the

Administrator of General Services to prioritize construction and alteration projects in accordance with meritbased needs criteria, and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Federal Buildings

5 Construction and Alteration Funding Improvement Act’’.
2

•S 765 IS

1 SEC. 2. PRIORITIZATION OF FEDERAL BUILDINGS CON2 STRUCTION AND ALTERATION FUNDING RE3 QUESTS.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Public Buildings Act of 1959

5 is amended by inserting after section 6 (40 U.S.C. 605)

6 the following:

7 ‘‘SEC. 6A. PRIORITIZATION OF FEDERAL BUILDINGS CON8 STRUCTION AND ALTERATION FUNDING RE9 QUESTS.

10 ‘‘(a) ANNUAL SUBMISSION TO CONGRESS.—As part

11 of the submission to Congress of the budget of the United

12 States Government for a fiscal year under section 1105

13 of title 31, United States Code, the President shall submit

14 a list, in order of need (as determined in accordance with

15 the regulations issued under subsection (b)), of projects

16 for the construction and alteration of public buildings for

17 which authorizations of appropriations are requested for

18 the fiscal year.

19 ‘‘(b) CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING NEED.—The Ad20 ministrator shall issue regulations specifying merit-based

21 criteria for determining the relative need for a project de22 scribed in subsection (a).’’.

23 (b) BUILDING PROJECT SURVEYS.—Section 11(b) of

24 the Act (40 U.S.C. 610(b)) is amended by adding at the

25 end the following: ‘‘In the case of a surveyed project for

26 the construction or alteration of a public building, the re-
3

•S 765 IS

1 port shall specify the relative need (as determined in ac2 cordance with the regulations issued under section 6A(b))

3 for the project with respect to all other such surveyed

4 projects that are not approved under section 7(a).’’.

Æ