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

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           12712
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                            8627
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     225897
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                         313199
<ALLOWANCE>                                       3333
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  582883
<DEPOSITS>                                      350998
<SHORT-TERM>                                     20718
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                               4091
<LONG-TERM>                                     140525
<COMMON>                                         72623
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      (6072)
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  582883
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  14274
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                 6004
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   294
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 20572
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                6737
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               10577
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                             9995
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      600
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 729
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                   5646
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   5621
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                        5621
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      4182
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .64
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .63
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.86
<LOANS-NON>                                        978
<LOANS-PAST>                                      2331
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                  3130
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      546
<RECOVERIES>                                       149
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                 3333
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                              3333
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            731
        

</TABLE>
#### FRIEND *et al.*v. Roth *et al.*

No. 297.

Opinion Filed May 12, 1909.

(102 Pac. 186.)

1. . COURTS — Supreme Court — Jurisdiction—Appeals from Territorial Courts. Section 18 of the enabling act (Act June 16, 1906, c. 3335, 34 Stat. 277) confers upon the Supreme Court of the state just such jurisdiction to review judgments rendered and entered in actions in the "United States courts of the Indian Territory prior to the admission of the state from which no appeal had been taken as the United States Court of Appeals for the Indian Territory could have taken if it had not been dissolved by the advent of statehood.

2. SAME — Time of Taking Appeals. A judgment in an action in a United States court of the Indian Territory, rendered and entered less than six months before the admission of the state, may be ■ reviewed by this court on appeal taken within six months from the entry of such judgment.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

*Appeal from, the United States Court for the Western District of the Indian Territory at Tulsaj William B. Lawrence, Judge.*

*'*Action by J. A. Friend and others against Nora B. Roth and Others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs appeal.

Dismissed.

*P. L. Thurman*and *Gibson & Ramsey,*for appellants.

*J. L. Earnage,*for appellees.

Hayes, J.

This is an action in equity brought in the United States Court for the Western District of the Indian Territory at Tulsa by plaintiffs, wherein that court, on the 23d of July, 1907, rendered and entered judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ petition. On the 17th da'y of July, 1908, plaintiffs presented to the Honorable Chief Justice of this court their petition praying an appeal from said judgment, which was allowed. Thereafter, on the 18th day of July, 1908, a transcript of the record, together with «said, petition, was filed in this court. Defendants have moved this court to dismiss the appeal upon the ground that same was not taken *867within the period of six months from the date of entry of judgment, the time allowed for taking an appeal by the statutes in force in the Indian Territory at the time of the rendition and entry of judgment.

This question was presented to and passed upon by the court in *Moberly v. Roth et al.*(decided at this term of the court), *ante,*p. 856, 102 Pac. 182, and there decided favorably to the contention of the defendants. ' .

The reasoning and rule of the court in that case is applicable to this, and it therefore follows that the motion to dismiss should be sustained.

All the Justices concur.
#### Shoshana Fischer, Respondent, v Joseph Fischer, Appellant.

Appeals from orders, Supreme Court, New York County *17(Hortense Gabel, J.), both entered on December 6, 1983, unanimously dismissed, without costs and without disbursements, as having been superseded. *(See, Fischer v Fischer,*111 AD2d 25.) No opinion. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Sandler, Sullivan and Bloom, JJ.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

MOHAMMAD H. NADERI, )

)

Plaintiff )

)

vs. ) CAUSE NO. 1:16-CV-41 RLM

)

FRITO-LAY, INC.; FRITO LAY; )

FRITO-LAY NORTH AMERICA, INC.; )

FRITOLAY.COM; JOHN DOE; )

TOM GRECO & WIFE; DON OLSON )

& WIFE; CURTIS HOBBY & WIFE; )

JANET GALBREATH & HUSBAND; )

SIDGWICK CMS CEO & WIFE; )

SIDGWICK CMS & SIDGWICK CMS )

PEPSI CO; and LEE ANNE GILMAN, )

)

Defendants )

ORDER

Mohammad Naderi has filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and a

petition to proceed in forma pauperis. He alleges in his complaint that the super

party sized bag of Doritos Nacho Cheese Chips he bought in 2014 in Fort Wayne,

Indiana, was contaminated, resulting in injury and doctor and hospital bills he

can’t pay. Mr. Naderi claims the defendants have conspired to violate his civil and

constitutional rights by refusing to pay him for his claims. He reports that he is

61 years of age, Muslim, and of Iranian national origin.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) permits a court to screen cases “at any time” and

dismiss a case that is legally frivolous or fails to state a claim upon which relief

can be granted. An examination of Mr. Naderi’s complaint shows that this is just

USDC IN/ND case 1:16-cv-00041-RLM-SLC document 3 filed 02/04/16 page 1 of 3
such a case, one that is based on “an indisputably meritless legal theory.” Neitzke

v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989).

To be actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the conduct complained of must

have occurred at the hands of a person acting under color of state law and must

have deprived the complainant of rights, privileges, or immunities guaranteed by

the Constitution or laws of the United States. Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535

(1981). Mr. Naderi hasn’t alleged and can’t establish either element of a Section

1983 claim. He seeks to bring suit against private companies and private citizens,

i.e., officials of those private companies and the spouses of those officials, and he

hasn’t alleged that any of the defendants acted “under color of state law” or

conspired with a state actor to deprive him of his constitutional rights. Brokaw v.

Mercer County, 235 F.2d 1000, 1009 (7th Cir. 2000). Lastly, Mr. Naderi’s claim

that the defendants violated unspecified “civil rights and constitutional rights” by

“deceiving, frauding, not showing responsibilities & liabilities” and not

compensating him for his injuries doesn’t rise to the level of a Constitutional

violation required to state a claim under Section 1983. 

Because the defendants aren’t state actors and the conduct complained of

hasn’t deprived Mr. Naderi of rights secured under the United States Constitution,

he has no claim cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court DENIES Mr. Naderi

leave to proceed in forma pauperis [docket # 2] and DISMISSES this action

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

SO ORDERED.

2

USDC IN/ND case 1:16-cv-00041-RLM-SLC document 3 filed 02/04/16 page 2 of 3
ENTERED: February 4, 2016 

 /s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr. 

Judge, United States District Court

3

USDC IN/ND case 1:16-cv-00041-RLM-SLC document 3 filed 02/04/16 page 3 of 3
# L_2008107EN.01002901.xml

| 17.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 107/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 107/29

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 7 April 2008

appointing a Belgian member to the Committee of the Regions

(2008/309/EC)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 263 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Belgian Government,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 24 January 2006, the Council adopted Decision 2006/116/EC appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2006 to 25 January 2010 (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 24 January 2006, the Council adopted Decision 2006/116/EC appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2006 to 25 January 2010 (1).

| (2) | A member's seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the resignation of Ms MOERMAN, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

A member's seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the resignation of Ms MOERMAN,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

Mr Dirk VAN MECHELEN, Flemish Minister for Finance and the Budget and Town and Country Planning, is hereby appointed to the Committee of the Regions as a member for the remainder of Ms MOERMAN's current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2010.

Article 2

This Decision shall take effect on the day of its adoption.

Done at Luxembourg, 7 April 2008.

For the Council

The President

R. ŽERJAV

---

(1)  
  OJ L 56, 25.2.2006, p. 75.

1

---
**Exhibit 32.1**
**Certification of Chief Executive Officer**
     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, the undersigned officer of G REIT, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certifies, to hisknowledge, that:
   (i)the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of the Company for the fiscal year endedDecember 31, 2004 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) orSection 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
     (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.         /s/Anthony W. Thompson   Anthony W. Thompson    *Chief Executive Officer*   
Date: April 28, 2005
     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provide to theCompany and will be retained by the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
     Theforegoing certification is being furnished with the Company’sForm 10-K/A for the periodended December 31, 2004 pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being filed for purposes ofSection 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and it is not to be incorporated byreference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardlessof any general information language in such filing.
Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm











The Board of Directors:





Procera  Networks, Inc.





Los Gatos, California








We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-165464) of Procera Networks, Inc. of our reports dated March 15, 2011, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Procera Networks, Inc. as of December 31, 2010 and 2009, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity and comprehensive income (loss) and cash flows for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, and our report dated March 15, 2011, with respect to the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2010, which reports appear in this December 31, 2010, annual report on Form 10-K of Procera Networks, Inc.








/s/ PMB Helin Donovan











/s/ PMB Helin Donovan


San Francisco, California


March 16, 2011











50 Francisco St, Suite 120 - San Francisco, CA 94133

tel (415) 399-1330 - fax (415) 399-9212

AUSTIN - CHICAGO - DALLAS - HOUSTON

SAN FRANCISCO - SEATTLE - SPOKANEPMB HELIN DONOVAN, LLP A MEMBER OF RUSSELL BEDFORD INTERNATIONAL
[No. 37400-1-I.

Division One.

September 8, 1997.]

#### Ernest W. “Bill” McLean, et al., *Appellants,*v. King County, et al., *Respondents.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 86-2-17924-1, Ronald L. Castleberry, J., entered September 22, 1995. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Cox, J., concurred in by Grosse and Agid, JJ.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) No. 2:15 CR 96

)

RICHARD BALDERAS )

O R D E R

Pursuant to the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate

Judge (DE # 63), to which the parties have waived objection (DE # 62), the Magistrate

Judge’s findings and recommendations are now ADOPTED. Defendant Richard

Balderas is ADJUDGED to have committed a violation of supervised release as

described in the petition (DE # 43). The supervised release of defendant is now revoked

and defendant is ordered committed to the United States Bureau of Prisons forthwith to

serve one year and one day of incarceration therein. After successful completion of the

additional term of imprisonment, defendant shall not continue on supervised release.

The court recommends that defendant be granted credit for time served on this

supervised release revocation matter.

SO ORDERED.

Date: December 13, 2018

s/James T. Moody 

JUDGE JAMES T. MOODY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1998

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for the disposition 

of unused benefits in health flexible spending arrangements. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 28, 2005

Mr. MCCRERY (for himself and Mr. JINDAL) 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 provide 

for the disposition of unused benefits in health flexible 

spending arrangements.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. DISPOSITION OF UNUSED BENEFITS IN 

4 HEALTH FLEXIBLE SPENDING ARRANGE5 MENTS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 125 of the Internal Rev7 enue Code of 1986 (relating to cafeteria plans) is amended 

8 by redesignating subsections (h) and (i) as subsections (i) 

9 and (j), respectively, and by inserting after subsection (g) 

10 the following: 
2

•HR 1998 IH 

1 ‘‘(h) CONTRIBUTIONS OF CERTAIN UNUSED HEALTH

2 BENEFITS.—

3 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of this title, 

4 a plan or other arrangement shall not fail to be 

5 treated as a cafeteria plan solely because qualified 

6 benefits under such plan include a health flexible 

7 spending arrangement under which not more than 

8 $500 of unused health benefits may be—

9 ‘‘(A) carried forward to the succeeding 

10 plan year of such health flexible spending ar11 rangement, or 

12 ‘‘(B) to the extent permitted by section 

13 106(d), contributed by the employer to a health 

14 savings account (as defined in section 223(d)) 

15 maintained for the benefit of the employee. 

16 ‘‘(2) HEALTH FLEXIBLE SPENDING ARRANGE17 MENT.—For purposes of this subsection, the term 

18 ‘health flexible spending arrangement’ means a flexi19 ble spending arrangement (as defined in section 

20 106(c)) that is a qualified benefit and only permits 

21 reimbursement for expenses for medical care (as de22 fined in section 213(d)(1), without regard to sub23 paragraphs (C) and (D) thereof). 

24 ‘‘(3) UNUSED HEALTH BENEFITS.—For pur25 poses of this subsection, with respect to an em-
3

•HR 1998 IH 

1 ployee, the term ‘unused health benefits’ means the 

2 excess of—

3 ‘‘(A) the maximum amount of reimburse4 ment allowable to the employee for a plan year 

5 under a health flexible spending arrangement, 

6 over 

7 ‘‘(B) the actual amount of reimbursement 

8 for such year under such arrangement.’’. 

9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

10 subsection (a) shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

11 December 31, 2004.

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

NYKAZA GEE, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Case No. 3:15-cv-00442-JVB-CAN

)

ERIC PARRISH and BRADY JANOVITZ, )

)

Defendants. )

APPEARANCE

To the Clerk of this court and all parties of record:

I, the below-signed, state that pursuant to N. D. Ind. L.R. 83-5, I have read and will abide 

by the Local Rules of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, including 

Appendix B: Standards for Professional Conduct within the Seventh Federal Judicial Circuit. I 

declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Enter my appearance as counsel in this case for Defendants Eric Parrish and Brady 

Janovitz, in the above-referenced matter.

Respectfully Submitted,

GREGORY F. ZOELLER

Indiana Attorney General

Atty. No. 1958-98

Date: June 3, 2016 By: /s/Philip Gordon

Philip Gordon

Deputy Attorney General

Atty. No. 31321-49

Indiana Government Center South, 5th Floor

302 W. Washington Street

Indianapolis, IN 46204-2770

(317) 232-6217; (317) 232-7979 (fax)

Philip.Gordon@atg.in.gov

USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00442-JVB-MGG document 18 filed 06/03/16 page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on June 3, 2016, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of 

the Court using the CM/ECF system which sent notification of such filing to the registered 

attorneys:

I also certify that a copy was mailed, by first class U.S. Mail, postage prepaid and 

properly addressed to the following non-CM/ECF participant:

Nykaza Gee

DOC # 127839

Indiana State Prison

One Park Row

Michigan City, IN 46360

/s/ Phillip Gordon

Philip Gordon

Deputy Attorney General

Office of Attorney General

Indiana Government Center South – 5th Floor

302 West Washington Street

Indianapolis, IN 46204-2770

Telephone: (317) 232-6217

Fax: (317) 232-7979

Email: Philip.Gordon@atg.in.gov

USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00442-JVB-MGG document 18 filed 06/03/16 page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

MARQUIS ROWE, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) Civil Action No. 3:15CV539

v. )

)

OCTAPHARMA PLASMA, )

)

Defendant. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Marquis Rowe, a pro se plaintiff, filed an in forma pauperis petition [DE 2] and a

complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 [DE 1]. Rowe sues Octapharma Plasma for the

alleged discrimination he suffered when Octapharma refused to let him donate plasma,

supposedly because he has a traumatic brain injury. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), I must review the complaint and dismiss it if

the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,

or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. Although

the bulk of Section 1915 pertains to screening prisoner complaints, Section 1915(e)(2)(B)

applies to prisoner and non-prisoner complaints alike, regardless of fee status. Rowe v.

Shake, 196 F.3d 778 (7th Cir. 1999). To survive dismissal, the complaint must state a claim

for relief that is plausible on its face. Bissessur v. Indiana Univ. Bd. of Trs., 581 F.3d 599,

602-03 (7th Cir. 2009)(citing and quoting Twombly and Iqbal). “A claim has facial plausibility

when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. at 602. Thus, the

plaintiff “must do better than putting a few words on paper that, in the hands of an

imaginative reader, might suggest that something has happened to her that might be

redressed by the law.” Swanson v. Citibank, N.A., 614 F.3d 400, 403 (7th Cir. 2010). 

Nevertheless, I must bear in mind that “[a] document filed pro se is to be liberally

construed, and a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less

stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S.

89, 94 (2007). 

Rowe brings his claim under 42 U.S.C § 1983. To state a claim under Section 1983,

Rowe must allege that “the defendants, while acting under color of state law, deprived

him of a federal right.” Jackson v. Compton, 151 F.3d 1032, at *1 (7th Cir. 1998). Rowe sues

what appears to be a private, non-state actor. He does not allege that Octapharma is a state

actor or is acting under color of state law. In fact, he provides such little detail in his

complaint that I can’t make out any basis for wrong-doing. Moreover, the relief he seeks

– an apology and the ability to be able to donate plasma again – is not the type of relief I

can grant. 

At bottom, Rowe has failed to state a claim against the named defendant. Thus, for

the foregoing reasons, the in forma pauperis petition (DE 4) is denied and this case is

DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 
SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: January 26, 2016

s/ Philip P. Simon 

PHILIP P. SIMON, CHIEF JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT