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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM 3RD QUARTER
10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           4,606
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,227
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (816)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                13,582
<PP&E>                                         116,501
<DEPRECIATION>                                  60,048
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  72,994
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           18,324
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           104
<OTHER-SE>                                      37,511
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    72,994
<SALES>                                         33,634
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                34,495
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   12,063
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                18,710<F1>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 896
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,826
<INCOME-TAX>                                       228
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,598
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,598
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.25
<FN>
<F1> "Other Expenses" Includes $12.3 million of depreciation depletion and
amortization and $1.1 million of impairment of oil and gas properties .

</FN>
        

</TABLE>
* Pursuant to Local 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-50633 Summary Calendar

__________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus TERRY LEE KINSER, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. SA-93-CR-280-1 - - - - - - - - - - March 6, 1996 Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Terry Lee Kinser appeals his sentence for false statements and aiding and abetting. 18 U.S.C §§ 1001 & 2. Kinser argues that the Government breached the plea agreement. We have reviewed the record and find no plain error. United States v. Calverley , 37 F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc), cert. denied , 115 S. Ct. 1266 (1995). AFFIRMED.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF 

PREVENTION, PESTICIDES

AND

TOXIC SUBSTANCES

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Addendum to the Risk Assessment and Science Support Branch: Final Draft

of Human Health Science Chapter For 1,4-Bis(bromoacetoxy)-2-butene RED, 

PC Code 0360, Case 818798, Barcode D271450.

FROM: Robert Quick, Chemist

Risk Assessment and Science Support Branch

Antimicrobials Division(7510C)

THRU: Norm Cook, Chief

Risk Assessment and Science Support Branch

Antimicrobials Division(7510C)

TO: Connie Welch, Chief

Regulatory Management Branch II

Antimicrobials Division(7510C)

Attached please find the following documents for the final draft human health science chapter for 1,4

Bis(bromoacetoxy)-2-butene:

1. Amended draft bibliography chapter

2. Revised draft science chapter

The purpose of this addendum is to respond to the FDA review of the first EPA draft of this 

science chapter. The EPA revisions address the concerns that FDA raised in their review. These are:

C FDA Comment: The FDA commented concerning the possible use of this chemical as a coating to

manufactured paper--in addition to the slimicide use of the chemical introduced into the wet end of the

paper-making process. 

EPA response: EPA did not consider the labeled use for paper to include a coating use because of the

manner in which the use pattern is stated on the label. However, the EPA suggests that the label be

revised to clarify the use pattern.
Page 2 of 2

C FDA Comment: The FDA uses an FDA model to calculate expected residues in the BBAB-treated

paper and in the food contacting the treated paper. This results in a finding of very low residues in food

that contacts treated paper. Therefore, FDA questions EPA’s use of a more conservative model.

EPA Response: The EPA did not use the FDA model to calculate residues in the BBAB-treated paper.

This is because BBAB has a very low solubility in water and because of an available migration study for

BBAB in treated paper which showed migration of BBAB from treated paper into food-simulating

solvents. This migration study does not follow current FDA guidance for conducting a migration study.

Additionally, that migration study was repeated in part to show no detectable residues in food-simulating

solvents. Because the previous migration study contained contradictory results and because BBAB has

limited water solubility, EPA performed a very conservative calculation for BBAB residues in food. Thus,

the EPA calculations produce a BBAB dietary intake that is several orders of magnitude higher than the

FDA model. EPA believes these calculations are more appropriate for BBAB than FDA’s estimates.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7014

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

WILLIAM ONEAL WINFREY, a/k/a Joe,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior 

District Judge. (6:14-cr-00400-HMH-1; 6:16-cv-01833-HMH)

Submitted: December 20, 2016 Decided: December 22, 2016

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WYNN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Oneal Winfrey, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Jean Howard, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

William Oneal Winfrey seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial 

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the 

merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment 

of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. 

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 

U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on 

procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the 

dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion 

states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. 

Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that

Winfrey has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

Winfrey’s motion for a certificate of appealability 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
#### IN RE: Reynaldo F. MARQUES, Debtor. Reynaldo F. Marques, Appellant, v. James J. Joseph, Trustee; JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A, Appellees.

No. 16-60095

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 18, 2017 *

Filed December 26, 2017

Reynaldo F. Marques, Pro Se

James J. Joseph, Pro Se

David M. Liu, Parker Ibrahim & Berg LLC, Costa Mesa, CA, for Appellee

*376Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Chapter 7 debtor Reynaldo F. Marques appeals pro se from the judgment of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) affirming the bankruptcy court’s order granting JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. relief from the automatic stay. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo BAP decisions, and apply the same standard of review that the BAP applied to the bankruptcy court’s ruling. *Boyajian v. New Falls Corp. (In re Boyajian),*564 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.

The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by granting relief from the automatic stay because JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. presented evidence establishing that it had a colorable claim to the property at issue. *See Arkison v. Griffin ( In re Griffin),*719 F.3d 1126, 1128 (9th Cir. 2013) (“[Bjecause final adjudication of the parties’ rights and liabilities is yet to occur, a party seeking stay relief need only establish that it has a colorable claim to the property at issue.”); *Moldo v. Matsco, Inc. (In re Cybernetic Servs., Inc.),*252 F.3d 1039, 1045 (9th Cir. 2001) (setting forth standard of review).

Marques has waived any other challenge to the order lifting the automatic stay. *See Greenwood v. FAA,*28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We review only issues which are argued specifically and distinctly in a party’s opening brief.”).

We" reject as unsupported by the record Marques’ unsupported contentions that the bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction and violated due process.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 50480 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
ALEJANDRO ESPINOZA

- HERNANDEZ, also known as Alejandro Espinozahernandez, also known as Alejandro Espinoza Hernandez, als o known as Alex Espino z a, also known as Alex Espinosa, also known as Alejandro Espinoza, also known as Alejandro Hernandez

- Espinoza, als o known as Alejandro Espinzoa Hernandez , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:19

- CR

- 37

- 1

Before JOLLY, JONES, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Alejandro Espinoza

- Hernandez appeals his conviction for illegal reentry into the United States. He challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment, arguing that it was invalid because the notice to

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED October 8, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-50480 Document: 00515150829 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/08/2019No. 19

- 50480

2 appear in his removal proc eedings was defective because it did not specify a time and date for his removal hearing and that the removal order was thus void . He concedes that this challenge is foreclosed by United States v. Pedroza

Rocha , 933 F.3d 490 (5th Cir. 2019) , but he wishes to preserve it for further review. The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance, agreeing that the issue is foreclosed under Pedroza

- Rocha

. Alternately, the Government requests an extension of time to file its brief. Summary affi rmance is appropriate if “the position of one of the parties is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case.” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis , 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). Pedroza

- R ocha concluded that the notice to appear was not deficient because it did not specify a date for the hearing , that any such alleged deficiency had not deprived the immigration court of jurisdiction, and that Pedroza

- Rocha could not collaterally attack his notice to appear without first exhausting his administrative remedies. 933 F.3d at 496

– 98. Espinoza

Hernandez’s arguments are, as he concedes, foreclosed by this case. See id. Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Case: 19-50480 Document: 00515150829 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/08/2019
**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**





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (the “Quarterly Report”) of
      Emerald Dairy Inc. (the “Registrant”) for the fiscal quarter ended March 31,
      2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof,
      I, Yang Yong Shan, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President of the
      Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)  The
      Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
      Registrant.








By: /s/
      Yang
      Yong Shan


Yang
      Yong
      Shan


Chairman,
      Chief Executive Officer and President


(Principal
      Executive Officer)


Dated
      this 20 th day of
      May, 2008
<PAGE>



            [LETTERHEAD OF PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP]
                                                                  Exhibit No. 16


April 25, 2002



Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20549

Commissioners:

We have read the statements made by IWO Holdings, Inc. (copy attached), which we
understand will be filed with the Commission, pursuant to Item 4 of Form 8-K, as
part of the Company's Form 8-K report dated April 23, 2002. We agree with the
statements concerning our Firm in such Form 8-K.

Very truly yours,

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE * IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

COMMISSION OF MARYLAND OF MARYLAND

 * 

 Misc. Docket AG No. 102 

 * September Term, 2013 

v. 

 * 

SCOTT BRIAN BLUMENFELD 

 * Case No. 29751M 

 Circuit Court for Montgomery Co. 

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

ORDER

The Court having considered the Joint Petition For Indefinite Suspension By Consent and 

Supplement thereto (in which Bar Counsel and Respondent agreed that Respondent violated 

Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct (MLRPC) 1.1, 1.2 (a), 1.3, 1.4 (b), 1.5 (a)-

(b), 1.15 (a) and (c), 5.3 (a)-(c), 5.4(a), and 8.4(a) and (d), as well as Rule 16-606.1), filed in the 

above entitled case, it is this 17th day of July, 2014 

ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland that Scott Brian Blumenfeld be, and 

he is hereby, suspended indefinitely by consent from the practice of law in the State of Maryland, 

such suspension to become effective sixty (60) days from the date of this Order, with the right to 

apply for reinstatement no earlier than six (6) months after the effective date of this suspension; 

and it is further 

ORDERED, that the sixty (60) days prior to effective date of the indefinite suspension 

shall be used by Mr. Blumenfeld exclusively to conclude ongoing client matters and to take steps 

necessary to protect the interest of his clients; and it is further

ORDERED, that the Respondent will undertake no new matters and/or provide legal 

advice to new clients during this sixty (60) day period; and it is further 
ORDERED, that sixty (60) days from the date of entry of this Order, the Clerk of this 

Court shall remove the name of Scott Brian Blumenfeld, from the register of attorneys of the 

Court and certify that fact to the Client Protection Fund of the Bar of Maryland and all Clerks of 

all judicial tribunals in this State in accordance with Maryland Rule 16-772(d). 

 

 /s/ Glenn T. Harrell, Jr. 

 Senior Judge
CMF

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 19-0518

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

MATTHEW GLEN HOTCHKISS,

Defendant and Appellant.

GRANT OF EXTENSION

Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30-day extension of time, 

and good cause appearing therefor, Appellee is granted an extension of time to 

and including June 26, 2020, within which to prepare, serve, and file its response

brief.

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

May 28 2020

05/28/2020
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 8 A1 84 3 . ANN DOSS v . ANDREW DOSS, J R.

Th e Ap p el l a n t ’ s M o ti o n t o W i t h draw Ap p eal , fi l ed i n t h e ab o v e-s ty l ed cas e, i s h ereb y GRANTED.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia C le r k ’ s O f f i c e , A t la n t a ,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m
t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d th e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 

## June 21, 2018

06/21/2018
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.3

                       Consent of Independent Accountants


     We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this Amendment No. 2
to Registration Statement on Form S-4 of our report dated April 16, 2002, except
as to Notes 21 and 22 to the consolidated financial statements, which are as of
November 18, 2002, relating to the consolidated financial statements and
financial statement schedule of Hanover Compressor Company, which appears in
Hanover Compressor Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K/A-2 for the year ended
December 31, 2001. We also consent to the reference to us under the heading
"Experts" in such Registration Statement.


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Houston, Texas
November 25, 2002
* Local Rule 47.5.1 provides: "The publication of

opinions that and merely decide particular cases on the basis of

well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the

public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that

Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-40349

Conference Calendar

__________________

DAVID C. LITTLE HAWK,

a/k/a Wendell Lee,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

and

RUDY FRIAS, 

 Plaintiff,

versus

WAYNE SCOTT, Director,

Texas Department of Criminal Justice,

Institutional Division;

JERRY GROOM; JIMMY E. ALFORD, Warden;

ROBERT B. PARKER; PAMELA K. DAVIS;

BENNY EARL ROBERTS; JIMMY FOLSOM,

 Defendants-Appellees,

NOAH S. MARTINEZ,

 Movant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 0540-6 : 6:95-cv-217

- - - - - - - - - -

December 20, 1995

Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

On motion for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis

(IFP), David C. Little Hawk makes no argument that challenges the
No. 95-40349

-2-

district court's enforcement of a previously-imposed sanction

barring him from filing suits without judicial permission. He

has identified no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. IFP is denied,

and the appeal is dismissed as frivolous. See Howard v. King,

707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2. 

Because the instant appeal is frivolous and because it stems

from Little Hawk's violation of a district court sanction, we

impose a monetary sanction. Accordingly, Little Hawk shall pay

to the clerk of this court the amount of $100. Until he pays

that amount in full, Little Hawk shall be barred from filing any

civil appeal or other initial pleading in this court. 

IFP DENIED. APPEAL DISMISSED. SANCTION IMPOSED.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David Michael PERSONS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6830

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 30, 2017

Decided: February 2, 2018

David Michael Persons, Appellant Pro Se. Joshua Clarke Hanks, Assistant .United States Attorney, R. Booth Goodwin, II, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before KEENAN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

David Michael Persons seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of ap-pealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of, the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).

When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Persons has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal con*170tentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*