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

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                     1,844
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                     7,473
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                2,528
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                     9,576
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                       9,545
<LOANS>                                   42,725
<ALLOWANCE>                                  401
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            65,526  
<DEPOSITS>                                53,426  
<SHORT-TERM>                                   0 
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          681
<LONG-TERM>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       9
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                                11,410 
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>            65,526  
<INTEREST-LOAN>                            1,758 
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            523
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                           2,281
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                         1,281
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         1,284
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        997
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                 97
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                            1,007
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (22)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                    (1)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (1)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                .00
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                              3.21
<LOANS-NON>                                  743
<LOANS-PAST>                                   0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                               0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             400
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                101 
<RECOVERIES>                                   5
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            401
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         401
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                            0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        0
        

</TABLE>
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-10707

Summary Calendar

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Benny Lavern Collins,

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:20-CV-3328 

USDC No. 3:92-CR-141-1

Before Davis, Jones, and Elrod, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Benny Lavern 

Collins has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 24, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-10707 Document: 00516252266 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/24/2022
No. 21-10707

2

F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Collins 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.

Case: 21-10707 Document: 00516252266 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/24/2022
The Honorable D. Brook Bartlett, Chief Judge, United States 1

District Court for the Western District of Missouri.

___________

No. 96-1669

___________

Ervin Wright, *

 *

Appellant, *

 *

v. * Appeal from the United States

 * District Court for the

Division of Finance, Collection * Western District of Missouri.

Department, Jackson County, *

Missouri, * [UNPUBLISHED]

 *

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: October 28, 1996 

 Filed: November 1, 1996

___________

Before FAGG, WOLLMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Wright filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action seeking injunctive relief

and monetary damages for alleged due process and equal protection

violations by state taxing authorities. Wright complained that a scheduled

foreclosure sale of his property to recover tax delinquencies constituted

a taking without due process of law, and that defendant racially

discriminated against him because he is black.

On defendant's motion, the district court dismissed Wright's

1

complaint, concluding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the Tax

Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1341, because Missouri law provided an adequate

state remedy. Wright timely appealed.
 We note that pending this appeal, defendant has held in 2

abeyance the prospective sale of the property at issue.

-2-

We review de novo whether federal subject matter jurisdiction exists.

Keene Corp. v. Cass, 908 F.2d 293, 296 (8th Cir. 1990). We conclude the

district court was correct in dismissing Wright's complaint. See 28

2

U.S.C. § 1341 (federal courts lack jurisdiction over actions to enjoin

assessment, levy, or collection of any tax under state law where plain,

speedy, and efficient state remedy available); Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 141.210-

141.810 (providing procedures for challenging assessment and collection of

tax); Fair Assessment in Real Estate Ass'n, Inc. v. McNary, 454 U.S. 100,

107, 116-17 (1981) (barring § 1983 suits for monetary damages because of

principle of comity; addressing adequacy of Missouri's taxpayer-protection

processes). Defendant presented unrebutted evidence that Wright

participated in a pre-foreclosure evidentiary hearing. As to Wright's

equal protection claim, he failed to allege any supporting facts entitling

him to relief. See Klinger v. Department of Corrections, 31 F.3d 727, 731,

733 (8th Cir. 1994) (noting equal protection threshold requirement), cert.

denied, 115 S. Ct. 1177 (1995). 

Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           2,256
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,693
<ALLOWANCES>                                     7,101
<INVENTORY>                                        741
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,264
<PP&E>                                           6,562
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,610
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  15,609
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           22,164
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        28,053
<OTHER-SE>                                    (37,156)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    15,609
<SALES>                                          6,282
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,282
<CGS>                                            5,083
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,351
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               (2,600)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,061
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (8,730)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       499
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (9,229)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (9,229)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (1.30)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.30)


</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE EMMANUEL A. ROBINSON, § § No. 466, 2017 Defendant Below, § Appellant, § Court Below—Superior Court of the § State of Delaware v. § § Cr. ID No. 1403011294 (N) STATE OF DELAWARE, § § Plaintiff Below, § Appellee. § Submitted: February 28, 2018 Decided: March 5, 2018 ORDER

This 5 th day of March 2018, it appears to the Court that: (1) The Clerk issued a notice directing that the appellant show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for his failure to pay the filing fee or to file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP motion”) seeking a waiver of the fee. Following his receipt of the notice to show cause, the appellant submitted a letter stating that he was unable to pay the filing fee. (2) By letter dated Febr uary 12, 2018, the Clerk sent the appellant an IFP motion form. The Clerk directed the appella nt to complete the motion and return it for filing on or before Februa ry 27, 2018. The Clerk advise d the appellant that if he

failed to file the motion on or before February 27, the appeal would be dismissed

without further notice.2 (3) The appellant has filed nothing furt her in this case and has not filed the IFP motion. Under these circumstances, dism issal of the appeal is deemed to be unopposed. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDE RED, under Supreme Court Rule 3(b)(2)(b), that the appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT: /s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. Justice
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 167 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  1st Session

                            H. CON. RES. 167

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

      To correct a technical error in the enrollment of H.R. 2160.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 167

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That in the enrollment of H.R. 2160 the Clerk of the House shall, in 
title IV, in the item relating to ``DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS--food stamp 
program'', strike the period and insert the following: ``: Provided 
further, That none of the funds made available under this heading shall 
be used for studies and evaluations.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives October 6, 1997.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 320

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Supporting the Baltic people of Estonia, Latvia,

Pact of Non-Aggression of August 23, 1939.and Lithuania, and condemning the Nazi-Soviet
105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 320

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Whereas on February 16, 1918, February 24, 1918, and November 18, 1918, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, declared,

respectively, their independence and became democratic,

peace-loving states with membership in the League of

Nations and diplomatic representation in the United

States;
2

•HCON 320 EH

Whereas on August 23, 1939, emissaries of Adolf Hitler and

Joseph Stalin, Nazi German Foreign Minister Ribbentrop

and Soviet Foreign Minister Molotov, signed an agreement known as the Nazi-Soviet Pact of Non-Aggression

which contained secret protocols that illegally divided

Eastern Europe into spheres of influence with Estonia,

Latvia, and part of Poland going to the Soviet Union and

Lithuania and Poland going to Nazi Germany;

Whereas the Soviet Army fulfilled the Nazi-Soviet Pact of

Non-Aggression by illegally invading Lithuania on June

15, 1940, and invading both Latvia and Estonia on June

17, 1940;

Whereas this illegal and forcible occupation was never recognized by the United States and successive United States

Administrations maintained continuous diplomatic relations with these countries throughout the Soviet period,

never once considering them to be ‘‘Soviet Republics’’;

Whereas the Baltic peoples valiantly re-established their independence through peaceful means and the United States

recognized their independent governments in 1991; and

Whereas Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia have achieved commendable success in the eight years since they re-established independence, including full democracy, significant

economic reforms, and civilian control of a new military

based on Western standards: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That, in observance of the 59th anniversary

3 of the Nazi-Soviet Pact of Non-Aggression, the Con4 gress—
3

•HCON 320 EH

1 (1) reaffirms the United States policy of the

2 non-recognition of the occupation by the Soviet

3 Union of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia subsequent

4 to the Nazi-Soviet Pact of Non-Aggression, which

5 for the 50 years after the signing of such Pact was

6 a commendable bipartisan policy that refused to le7 gally recognize the Soviet occupation of these coun8 tries;

9 (2) urges Russia, in the spirit of democracy, to

10 renounce the Nazi-Soviet Pact of Non-Aggression

11 and its secret supplemental protocols, as illegal;

12 (3) welcomes and supports the signing of the

13 United States-Baltic Charter by the United States,

14 Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia that reiterates the

15 strong historical kinship between the peoples of

16 these countries; and

17 (4) calls on the President and Secretary of

18 State to work to ensure that Russia understands

19 that the Nazi-Soviet Pact of Non-Aggression should

20 be considered illegal and null and void.

Passed the House of Representatives October 10,

1998.

Attest:

Clerk.
#### Raul Barajas VERDUZCO, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 16-70547

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 8, 2017 * Seattle, Washington

Filed December 14, 2017

Steve Tanijo, Law Office of Steve Tanijo PLLC, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner

OIL, Manuel Palau, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

*410Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Raul Barajas-Verduzco, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the immigration judge’s (IJ) negative reasonable fear determination in his reinstatement of removal proceeding. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), and we deny the petition.

1. The IJ supported her negative reasonable fear determination with substantial evidence. We uphold an IJ’s ruling unless “any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary based on the evidence in the record.” *Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions,*850 F.3d 1051, 1059 (9th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted). Barajas-Verduzco did not suffer past persecution; he was not harmed or physically threatened when he lived in Mexico. The IJ concluded that Barajas-Verduzco did not show that his fear of future persecution and torture was objectively reasonable. The evidence does not compel a contrary conclusion. Indeed, that Barajas-Verduzco returned to Mexico for three months, without harm, supports the IJ’s conclusion.

2. Under the circumstances, we do not have jurisdiction over Barajas-Verduzco’s due process claims. This court may review a final order of removal only where the petitioner “has exhausted all administrative remedies available to [him] as of right.” *Sola v. Holder,*720 F.3d 1134, 1135 (9th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). Barajas-Verduzco failed to present his claims before the IJ, and his claims aré not excepted from the exhaustion requirement because they are procedural in nature. *Id.*at 1136.

PETITION DENIED.

**

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

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1654/2004

of 22 September 2004         

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), and in particular Article 4(1) thereof,

Whereas:

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 23 September 2004.

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

Done at Brussels, 22 September 2004.

For the Commission

J. M. SILVA RODRÍGUEZ            

Agriculture Director-General

----

(1)OJ L 337, 24.12.1994, p. 66. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1947/2002 (OJ L 299, 1.11.2002, p. 17).

----

ANNEX

to Commission Regulation of 22 September 2004 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

----

(1)  Country nomenclature as fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2081/2003 (OJ L 313, 28.11.2003, p. 11). Code ‘            999            ’ stands for ‘of other origin’.

----
III

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 63

To express the sense of the Senate regarding calculation of the Consumer

Price Index.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 18 (legislative day, JANUARY 10), 1995

Mr. DORGAN (for himself, Mr. DODD, and Mr. HARKIN) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

RESOLUTION

To express the sense of the Senate regarding calculation

of the Consumer Price Index.

Whereas the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System has maintained that the current Consumer Price

Index overstates the rate of inflation by as much as 50

percent;

Whereas other expert opinions on the accuracy of the

Consumer Price Index range from those indicating a

modest overstatement of the rate of inflation to those indicating the possibility of an understatement of the rate

of inflation;

Whereas several leaders in the Congress have called for an

immediate change in the way in which the Consumer

Price Index is calculated;
2

•SRES 63 IS

Whereas changing the Consumer Price Index in the manner

recommended by the Board of Governors of the Federal

Reserve System would result in both a reduction in Social

Security benefits and an increase in income taxes;

Whereas the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System estimates that a 1 percentage point reduction in the

Consumer Price Index, effected today, would generate

$150,000,000,000 in revenue over the next 5 years, including $55,000,000,000 generated during the year 2000

alone;

Whereas the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System estimates that, of the $55,000,000,000 in revenue

estimated to be generated during the year 2000,

$27,500,000,000 would result from a reduction in Social

Security benefits and $21,400,000,000 would result from

an increase in personal income taxes, which would primarily impact families with children;

Whereas the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which has responsibility for the Consumer Price Index, is working to identify and correct problems with the way in which the

Consumer Price Index is currently calculated; and

Whereas calculation of the Consumer Price Index should be

based on sound economic principles and not on political

pressure: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that—

2 (1) a precipitous change in the calculation of

3 the Consumer Price Index that would result in an

4 increase in income taxes and a decrease in Social Se5 curity benefits is not the appropriate way to resolve

6 this issue; and
3

•SRES 63 IS

1 (2) any change in the calculation of the

2 Consumer Price Index should result from thoughtful

3 study and analysis and should be the result of a con4 sensus reached by the experts, not pressure exerted

5 by politicians.

Æ
**Exhibit
32.2**
 
 **Certification
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**
 
 The
undersigned, who is the Chief Financial Officer
of International Microcomputer Software, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certifies
that (i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the three-month period ended
December 31, 2004, as filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the “Quarterly Report”), to which this Certification is an Exhibit,
fully complies with the applicable requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Exchange Act; and (ii) the information contained in this Quarterly Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.
 
 
 **Date:
February 14, 2005**
 
 **By:
/s/ William J. Bush**
 William
J. Bush
 Chief
Financial Officer (Principal Accounting Officer)
 
 
 35
**Exhibit 32.1**
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO****18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,****AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO****SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002**
     In connection with the Quarterly Report of LoralSpace & Communications Ltd. (the “Company”) onForm 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Bernard L. Schwartz, ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
     (1) The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and
     (2) The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ BERNARD L. SCHWARTZ      Bernard L. Schwartz     *Chief Executive Officer*
August 14, 2003