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


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          5,378
<SECURITIES>                                      153
<RECEIVABLES>                                      84
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    0
<PP&E>                                              0
<DEPRECIATION>                                      0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 20,546
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               0
<BONDS>                                           805
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                          370
<OTHER-SE>                                     17,234
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   20,546
<SALES>                                           995
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                1,522
<CGS>                                             252
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     252
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  411
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 14
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   845
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               845
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                      845
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .21
<PAGE>
 
                                                                     EXHIBIT 5.1

                           [LETTERHEAD APPEARS HERE]

                                 April 8, 1997

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

     Re:  PMT Services, Inc.
     Registration Statement on Form S-3

Ladies and Gentlemen:

     We are acting as counsel to PMT Services, Inc., a Tennessee corporation 
(the "Company"), in connection with the registration under the Securities Act of
1933, as amended (the "Act"), of 567,519 shares of the Company's Common Stock, 
$.01 par value per share (the "Shares"), to be sold by certain shareholders of 
the Company (the "Selling Shareholders") pursuant to the above captioned 
Registration Statement (the "Registration Statement"). We have examined the 
Company's Amended and Restated Charter, as amended, its Bylaws as amended to
date, the record of shareholders, the record of proceedings of its shareholders
and directors, and the Registration Statement. We have also examined and relied
upon such records, documents and other instruments as in our judgment are
necessary or appropriate in order to express the opinions hereinafter set forth.

     Based upon the foregoing, we are of the opinion that the Shares to be sold 
by the Selling Shareholders are duly and legally issued, fully paid and 
non-assessable.

     We hereby consent to the filing of this opinion as an exhibit to the 
Registration Statement and further consent to the reference to us under the 
caption "Legal Matters" in the Prospectus included in the Registration 
Statement.

                                   Very truly yours,

                                   /s/ Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis, PLLC
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>      This schedule contains summary financial information extracted
from Financial Statements for the three (3) months ended August 31, 1996, and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such form 10QSB for quarterly period
ended August 31, 1996.
<MULTIPLIER>   1       
       
<S>                                     <C>     
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       May-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                            Aug-31-1996
<CASH>                                       58,450
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                               533,348       
<ALLOWANCES>                                 18,611
<INVENTORY>                                 254,269       
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          1,849,785         
<PP&E>                                    2,679,188         
<DEPRECIATION>                            1,781,103         
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            2,924,782         
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     2,274,692         
<BONDS>                                     616,490       
<COMMON>                                     14,356      
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                   18,749     
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              2,924,732         
<SALES>                                     963,836       
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            963,836       
<CGS>                                       693,401       
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               608,974       
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           19,810     
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (358,349)         
<INCOME-TAX>                                      0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (358,349)        
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                               (358,349)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.14)
        

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 35.1**

** **

**World Omni Financial Corp.**

**Servicer Compliance Statement**

**Pursuant to Item 1123**

**of Regulation AB**

** **

** **

** **

I, William J. Shope,do hereby certify that I am the Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of World Omni Financial Corp., a Florida corporation,and further certify on behalf of World Omni Financial Corp. in its capacity as servicer (the “Servicer”) under theSale and Servicing Agreement, dated as of October 29, 2014 (the “Agreement”), among World Omni Auto Receivables Trust2014-B, as Issuing Entity, World Omni Auto Receivables LLC, as Depositor, and the Servicer, as follows:

 

(i)                  A review of the activities of the Servicer during the period covered by the issuing entity’s Annual Report on form10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance under the Agreement,has been made under my supervision.

 

(ii)                To the best of my knowledge, based on the review described above, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations underthe Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereuntoset my hand as of March 11, 2016.
<PAGE>   1


                 Exhibit 11 - Computation of Earnings per Share

The following tabulation presents the calculation of primary and fully diluted
earnings per common share for the six-month periods ended June 30, 1998 and
1997:


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                        SIX MONTHS ENDED      Six Months Ended
                                                          JUNE 30, 1998         June 30, 1997
                                                        ----------------      ---------------

<S>                                                     <C>                   <C>       
Reported net income (loss)                                  $  96,101             $(190,784)
                                                            =========             ========= 
                                                                                            
Earnings (loss) on common shares                            $  96,101             $(190,784)
                                                            =========             ========= 
                                                                                            
Weighted average common shares outstanding                    679,048               679,048 
                                                            =========             ========= 
                                                                                            
                                                                                            
Income (loss) per common share - basic and diluted                                          
                                                                                            
Income (loss) from continuing operations                    $     .14             $    (.28)
                                                            =========             ========= 
                                                                                            
Net income (loss)                                           $     .14             $    (.28)
                                                            =========             ========= 
</TABLE>
IA

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 22

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States limiting

the number of consecutive terms for Members of the House of Representatives and the Senate.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 7, 1997

Mr. SOLOMON introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to

the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United

States limiting the number of consecutive terms for

Members of the House of Representatives and the

Senate.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several
2

HJ 22 IH

1 States within seven years after the date of its submission

2 by the Congress:

3 ‘‘ARTICLE—

4 ‘‘SECTION 1. A person may not serve any portion of

5 a term as a Representative if the person has served as

6 a Representative for more than one year of each of the

7 six terms that immediately precede the term.

8 ‘‘SECTION 2. A person may not serve any portion of

9 a term as a Senator if the person has served as a Senator

10 for more than three years of each of the two terms that

11 immediately precede the term.

12 ‘‘SECTION 3. This article shall not prevent a person

13 who is serving any portion of a term as a Representative

14 or Senator on the date of the ratification of this article

15 from serving the remainder of the term.’’.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1992
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1992
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### L. RUTHER, Appellant v. The LAMB CENTER, Appellee

No. 17-7124

September Term, 2017

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Filed On: November 17, 2017

L. Ruther, Pro Se

BEFORE: Kavanaugh and Millett, Circuit Judges, and Ginsburg, Senior Circuit Judge

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(3). It 1⁄8

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s August 14, 2017 order be affirmed. The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing appellant’s case without prejudice on the ground that the complaint did not meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). See Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 668-71 (D.C. Cir. 2004). Appellant’s complaint did not contain a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction or of the claim showing that he is entitled to relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).

*720Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antoinette Theresa KNOWLES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-10569 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(February 1, 2018)

Edwin F. Knight, Robert G. Davies, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Pensacola, FL, *434Christopher P. Canova, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tallahassee, FL, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee

Antoinette Theresa Knowles, Pro Se

Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, WILSON and JORDAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Patricia Jean Kyle, appointed counsel for Antoinette Theresa Knowles in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Knowles’s convictions and sentences are AFFIRMED.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 1485

In re: DAVID LEE SMITH , Petitioner

.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

. (5:17

- ct

- 03063

- D)

Submitted : August 16, 2018 Decided: August 20, 2018

Before WYNN and DIAZ , Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.
David Lee Smith, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: David Lee Smith petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order vacating the district court’s Sept. 1 4 , 2017, order , directing the district court to reverse Smith’s North Carolina convictions, and direct ing the state custodian to release him. We conclud e that Smith is not entitled to mandamus relief. Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court , 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); United States v.
Moussaoui , 333 F.3d 509, 516

- 17 (4th Cir. 200 3). Further, mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. &
Loan Ass’n , 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp. , 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). Further, this court does not have jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief against state officials, Gurley v. Superior Court of Mecklenburg C ty. , 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir. 1969), and does not have jurisdiction to review final state court orders, Dist. of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman , 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983). The relief sought by Smith is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the peti tion for writ of mandamus. We warn Smith, however, that future frivolous submission s may result in the imposition of monetary sanctions. 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.
PETITION DENIED
105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 297

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Providing for an adjournment of both Houses.
105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 297

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That when the House adjourns on the legisla3 tive day of Thursday, June 25, 1998, it stand adjourned

4 until 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, July 14, 1998, or until noon

5 on the second day after Members are notified to reassem-
2

•HCON 297 EH

1 ble pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution,

2 whichever occurs first; and that when the Senate recesses

3 or adjourns at the close of business on Friday, June 26,

4 1998, Saturday, June 27, 1998, or Sunday, June 28,

5 1998, pursuant to a motion made by the Majority Leader,

6 or his designee, in accordance with this concurrent resolu7 tion, it stand recessed or adjourned until noon on Monday,

8 July 6, 1998, or such time on that day as may be specified

9 by the Majority Leader or his designee in the motion to

10 recess or adjourn, or until noon on the second day after

11 Members are notified to reassemble pursuant to section

12 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first.

13 SEC. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority

14 Leader of the Senate, acting jointly after consultation with

15 the Minority Leader of the House and the Minority Lead16 er of the Senate, shall notify the Members of the House

17 and the Senate, respectively, to reassemble whenever, in

18 their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.

Passed the House of Representatives June 25, 1998.

Attest:

Clerk.
#### COM. v. PAYNE, S.

655 EDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

9/8/2017

CP-51-CR-0008200-2014

(Philadelphia)

Affirmed
No. 11-9697.

#### King *v.*Humphrey, Warden.

Super. Ct. Butts County, Ga. Certiorari denied.
SLIP OP. 01-46

UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

BEFORE: HONORABLE JAMES L. WATSON, SENIOR JUDGE

-------------------------------------------------------------X

MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL : COURT NO. 87-07-00778

CO., LTD.,

 :

Plaintiff, 

 :

v. 

 :

UNITED STATES, 

 :

Defendant. 

 

-------------------------------------------------------------X

JUDGMENT

In this case, issue was joined on October 19, 1987. No action has been taken by plaintiff

to prosecute this case since December 1, 1987, on which date the plaintiff stipulated with

defendant to a protective order. Accordingly, this action is dismissed for lack of prosecution. 

DATED: April 17, 2001 ______________________________

 New York, New York James L. Watson, Senior Judge
#### Michael B. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sanjeev BATRA, Doctor at Coalinga State Hospital; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-16790

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted January 16, 2018 *

Filed January 25, 2018

Michael B. Williams, Pro Se

Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Michael B. Williams, a civil detainee under California’s Sexually Violent Predators Act, appeals pro se from the magistrate judge’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging retaliation and due process violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo whether the magistrate, judge validly entered judgment on behalf of the district court. *Allen v. Meyer,*755 F.3d 866, 867-68 (9th Cir. 2014). We vacate and remand.

Williams consented to proceed before the magistrate judge. *See*28 U.S.C. § 636(c). The magistrate judge then screened and dismissed Williams’s action before the named defendants had been served. *See*28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Because all parties, including unserved defendants, must consent to proceed before the magistrate judge for jurisdiction to vest, *Williams v. King,*875 F.3d 500, 503-04- (9th Cir. 2017), we vacate the magistrate judge’s order and remand for further proceedings. To the extent that Williams requests appointment of counsel on remand (Docket Entry No. 7), the request is denied without prejudice to Williams requesting appointment of counsel by the district court.

Williams’s request that his pending appeals, Case Nos. 17-15530, 17-15834, and *32717-16790, be assigned to the same merits panel (Docket Entry No. 7) is granted.

VACATED and REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Douglas Ray ARLEDGE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ADA COUNTY; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-35113

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 18, 2017 *

Filed December 20, 2017

Douglas Ray Arledge, Pro Se

Before: 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 **

Former Idaho state prisoner Douglas Ray Arledge appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims arising out of state court criminal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 *909U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Whitaker v. Garcetti,*486 F.3d 572, 579 (9th Cir. 2007) (dismissal under *Heck v. Humphrey,*512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994)); *Barren v. Harrington,*152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Arledge’s action as iiec/c-barred because success on his claims would necessarily imply the invalidity of his sentence, and Arledge failed to show that his sentence has been invalidated. *See Heck,*512 U.S. at 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364 (explaining that if “a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence ... the complaint must he dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated”).

AFFIRMED.

**

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