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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                       1,108,461
<SECURITIES>                                 1,465,391
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,598,713
<PP&E>                                       1,415,796
<DEPRECIATION>                                 233,721
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,176,047
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          111,547
<BONDS>                                        792,628
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     3,163,206
<OTHER-SE>                                     108,666
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,176,047
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               891,481
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  291,034
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              35,776
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                564,671
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            564,671
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   564,671
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

STEVEN LUGO, 

 Plaintiff,

 v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,

Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

 Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case. No. 2:13-cv-00203-RL-PRC

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Commissioner’s Unopposed Motion for Relief

from Judgment Under Rule 60(b). The record reflects that this matter is currently pending before

the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Accordingly, this Court cannot

immediately grant the relief requested. Rather, as the Commissioner recognizes, Seventh Circuit

Rule 57 applies:

A party who during the pendency of an appeal has filed a motion under

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a) or 60(b) . . . should request the district court to

indicate whether it is inclined to grant the motion. If the district court so

indicates, this court will remand the case for the purpose of modifying the

judgment . . . .

In accordance with Seventh Circuit Rule 57, the Commissioner has requested that this

Court indicate whether it is inclined to grant his motion pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. The basis for such action stems from the fact that the Commissioner

now agrees with Mr. Lugo that remand for further administrative proceedings is warranted

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), thereby justifying relief from the Court’s July 24, 2014,

Judgment in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). See Brown v. United States, 976 F.2d
1104, 1110-11 (7th Cir. 1992) (“[i]n such circumstances we have directed district courts to

review such motions promptly, and either deny them or, if the court is inclined to grant relief, to

so indicate so that we may order a speedy remand.”).

Having thus reviewed the record, the Court agrees that further administrative proceedings

are warranted, and the Court is inclined to grant the relief sought by the Commissioner if the

case is remanded by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit for purposes of

modifying the judgment.

Entered this 2nd day of December, 2014.

s/ Rudy Lozano 

Rudy Lozano

United States District Judge

2
MASSACHUSETTS, petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SERVICES, et al.

No. 12-97.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 27, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.

Justice KAGAN took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 on Form 10-Q for the period ended
August 31, 2002 of ACR Group, Inc. (the "Company") as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Alex Trevino, Jr.,
Chief Executive Officer, certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the Report
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.

                                                   /s/ Alex Trevino, Jr.
                                                   ---------------------
                                                   Alex Trevino, Jr.
                                                   Chief Executive Officer
                                                   October 15, 2002
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1597 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1597

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the age limit 
                       for the child tax credit.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 13, 2005

Ms. Baldwin (for herself, Mr. Brown of Ohio, Mr. Kucinich, Mr. Chabot, 
  Mr. Gonzalez, and Mr. Sensenbrenner) introduced the following bill; 
         which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the age limit 
                       for the child tax credit.

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

SECTION 1. INCREASE IN AGE LIMIT FOR CHILD TAX CREDIT.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 24(c) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (defining qualifying child) is amended by striking 
``age 17'' and inserting ``age 19''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2005.
                                 <all>
```
Mariano ANGUIANO-MORFIN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13-6662.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 4, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 32


                       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 Annual Report of Thompson Acquisition Corp.
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2003,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Gary Huang, President of Thompson Acquisition Corp.,
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 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 results of
operations of the Company.


Date:  March 19, 2004


/s/ Gary Huang
--------------------
Gary Huang, President
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1875 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1875

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and 
    feasibility of designating the Wolf House, located in Norfolk, 
    Arkansas, as a unit of the National Park System, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 27, 2005

  Mr. Berry introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                         Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and 
    feasibility of designating the Wolf House, located in Norfolk, 
    Arkansas, as a unit of the National Park System, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. NATIONAL PARK SERVICE STUDY REGARDING WOLF HOUSE IN NORFOLK, 
              ARKANSAS.

    (a) Finding.--Congress finds that the Wolf House, located in 
Norfolk, Arkansas, is the oldest two-story log structure, and the 
oldest territorial courthouse, in the United States west of the 
Mississippi River.
    (b) Definitions.--In this section:
            (1) Wolf house.--The term ``Wolf House'' means the 
        structure known by that name and located on Highway 5 in 
        Norfolk, Arkansas.
            (2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
        of the Interior, acting through the Director of the National 
        Park Service.
    (c) Study.--The Secretary shall, in consultation with the State of 
Arkansas--
            (1) carry out a study regarding the suitability and 
        feasibility of designating the Wolf House as a unit of the 
        National Park System; and
            (2) consider management alternatives for the Wolf House.
    (d) Study Process and Completion.--Except as provided by subsection 
(e) of this section, section 8(c) of Public Law 91-383 (16 U.S.C. 1a-
5(c)) shall apply to the conduct and completion of the study required 
by this section.
    (e) Submission of Study Results.--Not later than 1 year after the 
date of the enactment of this section, the Secretary shall submit to 
the Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives and the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate a report 
describing the results of the study.
                                 <all>
```
#### KNAPP, Appellant, v. TOWN OF PALATINE et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

January 25, 1899.)

Action by Jose Knapp, as administrator, etc., against the town of Palatine and town of Oanajoharie.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) No. 1:15-cr-00053-TLS-SLC

)

EDGAR ENRIQUE MORENO-RAMIREZ, )

also known as Edgar Moreno-Ramirez )

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

UPON A PLEA OF GUILTY

TO: THE HONORABLE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN, CHIEF JUDGE, 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Upon Defendant’s request to enter a plea of guilty pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal

Rules of Criminal Procedure, this matter came on for hearing before U.S. Magistrate Judge Susan

Collins, on February 24, 2017, with the written consents of Defendant, counsel for Defendant,

and counsel for the United States of America.

The hearing on Defendant’s plea of guilty was in full compliance with Rule 11, Federal

Rules of Criminal Procedure, before the Magistrate Judge in open court and on the record.

In consideration of that hearing and the statements made by Defendant under oath on the

record and in the presence of counsel, the remarks of the Assistant United States Attorney and of

counsel for Defendant,

I FIND as follows:

(1) that Defendant understands the nature of the charges against him to which the plea is

offered;

(2) that Defendant understands his right to trial by jury, to persist in his plea of not guilty,

to the assistance of counsel at trial, to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, and his
right against compelled self-incrimination;

(3) that Defendant understands what the maximum possible sentence is, including the

effect of the supervised release term, and Defendant understands that the Sentencing Guidelines

apply and that the Court may depart from those guidelines under some circumstances;

(4) that the plea of guilty by Defendant has been knowingly and voluntarily made and is

not the result of force or threats or of promises apart from the plea agreement between the

parties;

(5) that Defendant is competent to plead guilty;

(6) that Defendant understands that his answers may later be used against him in a

prosecution for perjury or false statement;

(7) that there is a factual basis for Defendant’s plea; and further,

I RECOMMEND that the Court accept Defendant’s plea of guilty and that Defendant be

adjudged guilty of the offenses charged in Counts 1 and 3 of the four-count Indictment, and have

sentence imposed. A Presentence Report has been ordered. Should this Findings and

Recommendation be accepted and Defendant adjudged guilty, sentencing will be scheduled

before Chief Judge Theresa L. Springmann by separate order and notice. Objections to the

Findings and Recommendation are waived unless filed and served within fourteen (14) days. 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).

DATED this 28th day of February 2017.

/s/ Susan Collins 

Susan Collins,

United States Magistrate Judge

2
#### HENRY, Respondent, v. JONES, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

October 9, 1907.)

Action by Julia Henry against Griffith M. Jones.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment and order reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event, upon the ground that the verdict is contrary to evidence.

McLBNNAN, P. j., dissents.
Shane C. BUCZEK, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13-5668.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 2, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FORM
10-QSB AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000714286
<NAME> UNITED FINANCIAL BANKING COMPANIES, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       1,580,299
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         100,000
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             7,509,859
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  1,742,726
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                       2,702,657
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                         2,692,081
<LOANS>                                     37,320,231
<ALLOWANCE>                                    774,527
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              53,089,798
<DEPOSITS>                                  48,911,220
<SHORT-TERM>                                    50,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            291,896
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        1,366,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       561,640
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,909,042
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              53,089,798
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                864,559
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              125,837
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 1,436
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               991,832
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             456,481
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          535,351
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   59,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                670,819
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (131,659)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   (131,659)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (131,659)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.29)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.29)
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    9.24
<LOANS-NON>                                    100,418
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               715,399
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                       129
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              774,527
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           774,527
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        447,928
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       1,666,768
<SECURITIES>                                    87,750
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,168,482
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  2,834,518
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            13,454,169
<PP&E>                                       6,582,451
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              30,479,371
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       22,877,110
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       230,874
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,371,387
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                30,479,371
<SALES>                                     10,491,175
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            10,491,175
<CGS>                                        8,812,455
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,812,455
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,244,735
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             549,856
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (629,817)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   357,200
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (987,017)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              4,871,040
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,884,023
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.70
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.70
        

</TABLE>
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 7717** 

TIMOTHY A. JONES , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,
v. C. W. MITCHELL, Superintendent, Haynesville Correctional Unit #17; JANE DOE; JOHN DOE , Defendants

- Appellees
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond
. James R. Spencer , District Judge. ( 3 :11

- cv - 0 0594

- JRS )

Submitted : April 26, 2012 Decided: April 30, 2012

Before GREGORY, AGEE, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Timothy A. Jones , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Timothy A. Jones appeals the district court ’ s order dismissing without prejudice h is civil suit because Jones did not return a completed in forma pauperis affidavit form and consent to collection of fees form and he did not pay the statutory filing fee . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm f or the reasons stated by the district court. Jones v. Mitchell , No. 3:11

- cv - 00594

- JRS (E.D. Va. Nov. 18, 2011) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Shelter
Properties V Limited Partnership 1997 First Quarter 10-QSB and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such 10-QSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000712753
<NAME> SHELTER PROPERTIES V LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1997
<CASH>                                           2,668
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       28
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          74,331
<DEPRECIATION>                                (38,181)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  41,672
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                         31,795
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       8,841
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    41,672
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,318
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,235
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 695
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        83
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.56<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                            
<FN>
<F1>Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
<F2>Multiplier is 1
</FN>
        

</TABLE>