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

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE ANNUAL REPORT ON 
FORM 10-K FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1995 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS 
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                          24,144
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           2,366
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                16,250
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    157,813
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         621,528
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           615,290
<LOANS>                                      2,062,268
<ALLOWANCE>                                     30,014
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,004,496
<DEPOSITS>                                   1,819,840
<SHORT-TERM>                                   639,470
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             35,214
<LONG-TERM>                                    301,995
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            71
<OTHER-SE>                                     207,906
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               3,004,496
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                155,853
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               60,610
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               216,463
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              93,398
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             160,547
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           55,916
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    4,284
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             (2,194)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 60,628
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,854)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     (2,146)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (2,544)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,690)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.64)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.64)
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    1.86
<LOANS-NON>                                     10,755
<LOANS-PAST>                                     1,425
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                15,641
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                29,115
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  (4,879)
<RECOVERIES>                                     1,494
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               30,014
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            30,014
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 99.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly report of Conscious Intention, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Sylva
Leduc, Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to
the best of my knowledge and belief:

     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
         15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
         the Company.


     Sylva Leduc
     -------------------
     /s/

     Name: Sylva Leduc
     Title: Chief Executive Officer
     Date: August 14, 2003


A signed original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document  authenticating,  acknowledging,  or otherwise adopting the  signature
that appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written
statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
#### J. W. Linville *v.*State Compensation Commissioner

(No. 7412)

Submitted September 13, 1932.

Decided September 20, 1932.

*England & Ritchie,*for appellant.

*H. B. Lee,*Attorney General, and *R. Dennis Steed,*Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

*523HATCHER, PRESIDENT:

Tbe petitioner bad bis right ankle badly crushed in 1920, while at work for a subscriber to the "Workmen’s Compensation Fund. He was paid compensation for this injury on the basis of a thirty-five per cent disability which is the maximum amount permissible under the statute for the total loss of á foot. The ankle was treated for several years, and responded to the extent that petitioner resumed work in 1923 and continued to work until September, 1930, when he received a severe bruise on the same ankle. The compensation commissioner allowed him temporary compensation for the second injury, but refused an award for permanent disability. Petitioner complains of this refusal.

The evidence of the doctors is (in effect) that the petitioner has ankylosis of the ankle and tarsal bones, which is permanent; that the ankylosis is due to the first injury but has been aggravated by the second; and that petitioner can perform little if any manual labor with his foot in its present condition.

As the petitioner was paid the maximum statutory allowance for the entire loss of a foot (and the disability therefrom) as compensation for the first injury, the ruling of the commissioner must be affirmed. Otherwise, • the petitioner would be compensated twice for the same loss, a sequence not contemplated by the Workmen’s Compensation Law. *Van Tassel*v. *Basic, etc.,*216 App. Div. R. (N. Y.) 774; *Weber Co.*v. *Jeffery,*161 Tenn. 142; *Bowne*v. *Mills Co.,*(Conn.) 111 Atl. 215.

*Affirmed.*
No. 09-9626.

#### Isidro Abascal, Petitioner v. Steve Jarkos, et al.

559 U.S. 1116, 130 S. Ct. 2415,

176 L. Ed. 2d 941,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3684.

May 3, 2010.

Petition for writ of certio-rari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.

Justice So-tomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Same case below, 357 Fed. Appx. 388.
Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

Docket Number: FAA- 2011-0913

Directorate Identifier: 2011NM031AD

680-24-11 --- 12/16/10

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate

Rules Docket

1601 Lind Ave. SW.,

Renton, WA 98057

425.227.1221

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Form Date: 03/05/2008
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-11-00016-CR

ANDRE HYLTON APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM THE 367TH DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

On January 11, 2011, Appellant Andre Hylton filed a notice of appeal from 

a judgment imposed on September 8, 2010, convicting him of theft. Apparently 

recognizing that he had filed the notice of appeal late, see Tex. R. App. 

P. 26.2(a)(1), Hylton also filed a motion for an out-of-time appeal. This court 

does not have authority to grant an out-of-time appeal. See Slaton v. State, 981 

S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (reasoning that if an appeal is not timely 

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

perfected, a court of appeals does not obtain jurisdiction to address the merits of 

the appeal and can take no action other than to dismiss the appeal). 

Accordingly, we deny Hylton’s motion for an out-of-time appeal, and we dismiss 

this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f); Olivo v. State, 

918 S.W.2d 519, 523 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: MEIER, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and DAUPHINOT, J.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: March 10, 2011
J.H.G., Appellant, v. T.L.D., Respondent.

No. ED 106075

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO.

Filed: September 11, 2018

FOR APPELLANT: Paul J. Puricelli, Stone, Leyton & Gershman, 7733 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 500, Clayton, Missouri 63105.

FOR RESPONDENT: Kevin Lake, Lake, Lake & Watkins, LLC, 7777 Bonhomme, Suite 1501, Clayton, Missouri 63105.

GUARDIAN AD LITEM: Elaine A. Pudlowski, Frankel, Rubin, Klein, Dubin, Siegel & Payne, PC, 231 South Bemiston, Suite 1111, Clayton, Missouri 63105.

Before Philip M. Hess, P.J., Robert G. Dowd, Jr., J. and Mary K. Hoff, J.

***ORDER***

PER CURIAM

*524J.H.G. ("Father") appeals from the trial court's judgment granting T.L.D. ("Maternal Aunt") third-party custody of Father's six-year-old son, J.A.M. ("Child"), following the death of Child's mother, B.M. ("Mother"). Father raises seven points on appeal: 1) the trial court erroneously applied the law by failing to apply the presumption of parental fitness in favor of Father; 2) the trial court erroneously applied the law by basing its ruling on Father's past conditions; 3) the trial court's finding that Father is unable to provide for the stability, consistency, and routine required by Child is against the weight of the evidence; 4) the trial court's finding that Father is unfit, unsuitable, or unable to be the custodian of Child, and that the welfare of Child requires Maternal Aunt be awarded custody is against the weight of the evidence; 5) the trial court's finding it was in Child's best interest that Maternal Aunt be granted third-party custody is against the weight of the evidence; 6) the trial court erred in admitting Maternal Aunt's testimony regarding Father's medical history and in admitting Father's medical records; and 7) the trial court's finding that Father is unfit, unsuitable, or unable to be the custodian of Child is not supported by substantial evidence. We affirm. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
Lonnie SNELLING, Appellant, v. Kevin SEGBERS, et al., Respondent.

No. ED 105773

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO.

FILED: March 27, 2018 Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied April 30, 2018 Application for Transfer Denied July 3, 2018

Lonnie Snelling pro se.

Jason L. Moehlman, Lee's Summit, MO, for respondent.

Before Lisa P. Page, P.J., Roy L. Richter, J., and Philip M. Hess, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM

Lonnie Snelling ("Appellant") appeals from what appears to be a trial court's judgment in favor of Kevin Segbers ("Respondent") in Appellant's suit for negligent trespass, negligent interference with contract and business expectancy, creating a nuisance, property damages, conspiracy, negligent infliction of emotional distress and punitive damages. Respondent requests this Court order Appellant to pay Respondent damages of $5,000 for filing a frivolous appeal, pursuant to Rule 84.19.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no *373error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). Respondent's prayer for damages is granted in the amount of $5,000. Appellant's Motion for Sanctions is denied.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice 6543]

# AGENCY:

Department of State.

# ACTION:

Notice; FACA Committee meeting announcement.

# SUMMARY:

As required by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, the Department of State gives notice of the fifth meeting of the Advisory Committee on International Postal and Delivery Services. This Committee has been formed in fulfillment of the provisions of the 2006 Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (Pub. L. 109-435) and in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

*Public Input:*                         Any member of the public interested in providing public input to the meeting should contact Mr. Chris Wood, Office of Technical Specialized Agencies (IO/T), Bureau of International Organization Affairs, U.S. Department of State, at (202) 647-1044,                         *woodcs@state.gov.*

Each individual providing oral input is requested to limit his or her comments to five minutes. Requests to be added to the speaker list must be received in writing (letter, e-mail or fax) prior to the close of business on May 29, 2009; written comments from members of the public for distribution at this meeting must reach Mr. Wood by letter, e-mail or fax by this same date.

*Meeting Agenda:*                         The agenda of the meeting will include a review of the results of the March-April 2009 session of the UPU Postal Operations Council and other subjects related to international postal and delivery services of interest to Advisory Committee members and the public.                    

*Meeting Date:*                         June 4, 2009 from 2 p.m. to about 5 p.m. (open to the public).                    

*Location:*                         The American Institute of Architects (Boardroom), 1735 New York Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20006.                    

Dated: March 9, 2009.

Dennis M. Delehanty,

Designated Federal Officer, Advisory Committee on International Postal and Delivery Services, Foreign Affairs Officer, Department of State.

[FR Doc. E9-5747 Filed 3-16-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-19-P
No. 09-9224.

#### Pedro Arana, Petitioner v. California.

559 U.S. 1077, 130 S. Ct. 2110,

176 L. Ed. 2d 738,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3283.

April 19, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, denied.
<PAGE>


                                               Exhibit 11

                                Redwood Empire Bancorp


EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE

Earnings per common and common equivalent shares are computed by dividing
net income applicable to common stock by the total of the average number of
common shares outstanding and the additional dilutive effect of stock
options outstanding during the respective period.  The calculations give
effect to the 3 percent stock dividends declared in 1993 and 1992.  The
dilutive effect of stock options is computed using the average market price
of the common stock for the period for primary earnings per share.

Earnings per common share, assuming full dilution, are computed by dividing
net income by the average number of common shares outstanding during the
period, the dilutive effect of the Convertible Preferred Stock assuming
conversion at the time it was issued, and the additional dilutive effect of
stock options outstanding during the period.  The dilutive effect of
outstanding stock options is computed using the greater of the closing
market price or the average market price of the common stock for the
period.

Earnings per common share have been computed based on the following:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                        Year Ended December 31,
                                                     1995         1994         1993
                                                   ---------------------------------
                                                             (in thousands)
<S>                                                <C>           <C>          <C>
Net income (loss)                                    $3,313      ($3,035)     $4,564
Dividends on preferred stock                            336          448         432
                                                   --------     --------    --------
Net income (loss) applicable to common stock         $2,977      ($3,483)     $4,132
                                                   --------     --------    --------
                                                   --------     --------    --------

Average number of common shares outstanding           2,671        2,649       2,480
Average number of common and common equivalent
 shares outstanding                                   2,680        2,649       2,679
Average number of common shares outstanding -
 assuming full dilution                               3,179        2,649       3,171

Earnings per common and common equivalent share:
 Primary net income (loss) per share                  $1.11       ($1.31)      $1.54
 Fully diluted net income (loss) per share             1.04        (1.31)       1.44


</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Mary Lynn Kantara Gerke v. Jamil James Kantara

Appellate case number: 01-14-00082-CV

Trial court case number: 2011-46281

Trial court: 311th District Court of Harris County

Ashley V. Tomlinson, counsel for appellant, Mary Lynn Kantara Gerke, has filed a 

motion to withdraw as appellant’s counsel of record in this appeal. Appellant has filed a contest 

to the withdrawal of her counsel. 

Counsel’s motion to withdraw does not contain a list of current deadlines and settings in 

the case and does not state that a copy of the motion was “delivered to the party in person or 

mailed—both by certified and first-class mail—to the party at the party’s last known address.” 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(a)(1), (3),(b). The motion to withdraw is denied.

Appellant’s contest to the withdrawal of her counsel is dismissed as moot.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Terry Jennings

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: December 3, 2014
Reported Emissions and Product Content 

Table 1. Reported Emissions and Product Content of PFOA, Precursors, and Higher Homologues from U.S. Operations 

Company Sixth 

Reporting 

Year 

Chemical 

Category 

Emissions Product Content 

Releases to all 

media from FP 

and Telomer 

Manufacturing

(kg)

kg of 

release / kg 

of product 

produced 

Dispersions

(ppm wetweight basis)

Other 

Fluoropolymers

(ppm dry-weight 

basis)

Telomers 

(ppm dryweight basis, 

unless stated 

otherwise)

Asahi 2012 

PFOA, PFOA 

salts and 

Higher 

Homologues 

0 Not 

Applicable 0 0 Not Applicable 

Precursors Not Applicable 
Table 2. Reported Emissions and Product Content of PFOA, Precursors, and Higher Homologues from Non U.S. Operations 

Company Sixth 

Reporting 

Year 

Chemical 

Category 

Emissions Product Content 

Releases to all 

media from FP 

and Telomer 

Manufacturing 

(kg)

kg of 

release / kg 

of product 

produced 

Dispersions

(ppm wetweight basis)

Other 

Fluoropolymers

(ppm dry-weight 

basis)

Telomers 

(ppm dryweight basis, 

unless stated 

otherwise)

Asahi 2012 

PFOA, PFOA 

salts and 

Higher 

Homologues 

23.5 

For FP 

Production: 

< 1 kg / 100 

kg 

Not 

Applicable 18 

Negligible 

compared to 

precursors 

Precursors 0 

For Telomer 

Production: 

< 1 kg / 100 

kg 

Not 

Applicable Not Applicable 

Average 

50% (range: 

0-100%) 
Reported Percent Reductions in Emissions and Product Content 

Table 3. Reported Percent Reductions in Emissions and Product Content of PFOA, Precursors, and Higher Homologues from

U.S. Operations 

Company 

Sixth 

Reporting 

Year 

Chemical 

Category 

% Reduction in Emissions % Reduction in Product Content 

% Reductions in total 

quantity of chemical(s) 

released from baseline year

Fluoropolymer 

Dispersions 

Other 

Fluoropolymers 

Telomer based 

products 

Asahi 2012 

PFOA, 

PFOA salts 

and Higher 

Homologues 

100% 100% 100% Not Applicable 

Precursors Not Applicable 
Table 4. Reported Percent Reductions in Emissions and Product Content of PFOA, Precursors, and Higher Homologues from 

Non U.S. Operations 

Company 

Sixth 

Reporting 

Year 

Chemical 

Category 

% Reduction in Emissions % Reduction in Product Content 

% Reductions in total 

quantity of chemical(s) 

released from baseline year

Fluoropolymer 

Dispersions 

Other 

Fluoropolymers 

Telomer based 

products 

Asahi 2012 

PFOA, 

PFOA salts 

and Higher 

Homologues 

99.8% 100% 99.8% 

Negligible as 

compared to 

precursors 

Precursors 100% Not Applicable Not Applicable 96% 
Accomplishment Table 

Company Facilities Reductions 

 Emissions Product Content 

US 100% 100% 

Non-US 99.8% 96% 

Global 99.9% 96%
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-7099

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DONALD OMAR FAZEL, a/k/a Rodney Dickerson, a/k/a Roscoe Barnes,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga, Senior District Judge. (1:17-cr-00014-AJT-1; 1:17-

cv-01447-AJT)

Submitted: December 16, 2021 Decided: December 20, 2021

Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donald Omar Fazel, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Donald Omar Fazel seeks to appeal the district court’s June 30, 2021, order 

(1) directing the Government to respond to the unresolved claims from Fazel’s initial 

28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion; (2) denying Fazel’s motion to appoint counsel; and 

(3) construing Fazel’s motions to amend his initial § 2255 motion as successive § 2255 

motions and dismissing them for lack of jurisdiction. This court may exercise jurisdiction 

only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 

28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 

541, 545-46 (1949). The order Fazel seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an 

appealable interlocutory or collateral order.*

 Accordingly, we deny as moot Fazel’s motion 

to expedite and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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

* Motions seeking to raise additional § 2255 claims prior to the district court’s final 

adjudication of the first § 2255 motion are properly construed as motions to amend, 

Farabee v. Clarke, 967 F.3d 380, 389 (4th Cir. 2020), and the denial of a motion to amend 

is not immediately appealable, Bridges v. Dep’t of Md. State Police, 441 F.3d 197, 206 (4th 

Cir. 2006). The denial of a motion to appoint counsel is also not immediately appealable. 

Miller v. Simmons, 814 F.2d 962, 964 (4th Cir. 1987).