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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 
PRECEDING FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO 
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           3,169
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             562
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 1,100
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           9,207
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             9,220
<LOANS>                                        104,743
<ALLOWANCE>                                    (1,054)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 125,116
<DEPOSITS>                                     109,687
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              1,810
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        552
<COMMON>                                         8,278
<OTHER-SE>                                       (818)
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 125,116
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  8,354
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  707
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    59
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 9,120
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               3,968
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,985
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            5,135
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      266
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                      0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    962
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         962
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       559
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.61
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.61
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                   0.081
<LOANS-NON>                                        921
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,174
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      387
<RECOVERIES>                                         1
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              (1,054)
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           (1,054)
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            181
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-7204

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

WADDELL G. GIBBS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior 

District Judge. (3:07-cr-00233-REP-1; 3:09-cv-00268-REP)

Submitted: November 18, 2010 Decided: December 2, 2010

Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Waddell G. Gibbs, Appellant Pro Se. Jessica Aber Brumberg, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Waddell G. Gibbs seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) 

motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record 

and conclude that Gibbs has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 
3

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. JOSEPH B. LYNCH, DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

June 10, 1960.

*Mr. Frank P. Lucianna*for the petitioner.

*Mr. Guy W. Oalissi*and *Mr. William G. Brudnich*for the respondent.

Denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1997
<CASH>                                          18,492
<SECURITIES>                                         3
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,314
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     72,527
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               102,301
<PP&E>                                          21,569
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (2,192)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 131,489
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           40,384
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           103
<OTHER-SE>                                      83,117
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   131,397
<SALES>                                         59,929
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                73,183
<CGS>                                           46,018
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   28,595
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (78)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,352)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (522)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (830)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (830)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Case: 1:02-cv-05693 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/09/02 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:1
Case: 1:02-cv-05693 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/09/02 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:2
Case: 1:02-cv-05693 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/09/02 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:3
Case: 1:02-cv-05693 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/09/02 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:4
Case: 1:02-cv-05693 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/09/02 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:5
Case: 1:02-cv-05693 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/09/02 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:6
Case: 1:02-cv-05693 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/09/02 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:7
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Todd M. Preville, Appellant.

—Main, J. P.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County (Harris, J.), rendered June 20, 1984, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of stolen property in the first degree.

Defendant was indicted and charged with the crime of criminal possession of stolen property in the first degree. After plea-bargain negotiations, defendant pleaded guilty to such charge with the understanding that he would not be sentenced as a persistent felony offender. Thereafter, County Court sentenced defendant to *2>V¿*to 7 years’ imprisonment.

Defendant’s initial argument is that he was deprived of his right to effective assistance of counsel. The record does not support this contention. But for the plea bargain ultimately *879arranged, in part, by his counsel, defendant could have been sentenced to a longer prison term as a persistent felony offender *(see,*Penal Law § 70.10), which he was, rather than to the prison term that he actually received *(see, People v Bonk,*83 AD2d 695). Thus, viewing in totality the representation that defendant received, we cannot say that it was anything but effective *(see, People v Young,*116 AD2d 922).

We likewise reject defendant’s assertion that the sentence imposed upon him was harsh and excessive. As aforementioned, but for the plea bargain struck by defendant and the People, County Court could have sentenced defendant as a persistent felony offender. Instead, the court, adhering to the plea bargain, sentenced him as a second felony offender. Perceiving no abuse of discretion on the part of County Court in so doing, we do not now disturb the sentence imposed.

Judgment affirmed. Main, J. P., Weiss, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Injah Tafari, Appellant, v Brian S. Fischer, as Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.

[942 NYS2d 695]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Feldstein, J.), entered September 19, 2011 in Franklin County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, dismissed the petition.

While confined to the lower holding pen, petitioner became loud and boisterous, and used disrespectful language when referring to two correction officers. He also ignored a correction officer’s directives to stop yelling. As a result, he was charged in a misbehavior report with engaging in verbal harassment, disturbing the order of the facility and refusing a direct order. Petitioner was found guilty of the charges at the conclusion of a tier III disciplinary hearing, and the determination was upheld on administrative appeal with a modified penalty. Petitioner then commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the determination and, following joinder of issue, Supreme Court dismissed the petition. This appeal ensued.

Petitioner’s sole contention is that he was improperly denied *1325the right to call certain witnesses at the hearing. Based upon our review of the record, we find this argument to be without merit. The five inmate witnesses who petitioner requested were denied because they were not in the vicinity of the incident at the time it occurred. Inasmuch as they did not have personal knowledge of facts pertinent to the charges, their testimony was irrelevant *(see Matter of Thompson v Votraw,*65 AD3d 1403, 1404 [2009]; *Matter of Gimenez v Artus,*63 AD3d 1461, 1462 [2009]). Petitioner’s claim that these individuals may have heard something is purely speculative *(see Matter of Hughes v Bezio,*84 AD3d 1598, 1598 [2011]). Moreover, five correction officers who were present at the time of the incident testified at the hearing and a videotape of the incident was also shown. In view of this, the testimony of the Superintendent and the Assistant Commissioner would have been redundant *(see Matter of Knight v Bezio,*82 AD3d 1381, 1382 [2011], *lv dismissed*17 NY3d 788 [2011]; *Matter of Abreu v Bezio,*78 AD3d 1341, 1342 [2010]). Lastly, we find no error in the denial of testimony from representatives of the Office of Mental Health and Office of the Inspector General inasmuch as petitioner failed to convincingly demonstrate the relevance of such testimony or that he was prejudiced by its absence *(see Matter of Hernandez v Selsky,*296 AD2d 677 [2002]).

Mercure, J.P., Spain, Malone Jr., Garry and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs. [Prior Case History: 2011 NY Slip Op 33217(U).]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          48,881
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     50,292
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          31,870
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            31,319
<LOANS>                                        661,851
<ALLOWANCE>                                     10,885
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 810,443
<DEPOSITS>                                     670,336
<SHORT-TERM>                                    37,500
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              7,289
<LONG-TERM>                                      6,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        53,345
<OTHER-SE>                                      35,973
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 810,443
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 62,748
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                6,748
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                69,496
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              31,441
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              34,399
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           35,097
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    4,871
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 14,835
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 16,444
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      16,444
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,024
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.38
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.36
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.13
<LOANS-NON>                                      7,205
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                 2,106
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                 13,100
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 8,105
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    2,237
<RECOVERIES>                                       146
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               10,885
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            10,885
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
<FN>
INCLUDED IN NONINTEREST EXPENSE IS $700,000 OF PROVISION FOR
VALUATION ALLOWANCE ON LOANS HELD FOR SALE.
</FN>


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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1999
<CASH>                                          48,425
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   71,474
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (2,144)
<INVENTORY>                                     98,341
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               229,070
<PP&E>                                          68,200
<DEPRECIATION>                                (17,307)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 302,798
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           84,186
<BONDS>                                        107,666
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            50
<OTHER-SE>                                      34,069
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   302,798
<SALES>                                        346,679
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               347,123
<CGS>                                          308,374
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  349,389
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    11
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,157
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (10,435)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,488
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (13,923)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (13,923)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Walter Talley, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Douglass, J.), rendered September 22, 1983, convicting him of two counts of grand larceny in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

Defendant contends that the identification evidence was insufficient to establish his guilt. We disagree. Although the testimony of the prosecution witnesses on the identification issue contained some minor inconsistencies, the evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to the prosecution, was of sufficient quantity and quality to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was the complainant’s assailant *(see, People v Malizia,*62 NY2d 755, 757, *cert*denied_US_, 105 S Ct 327; *People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620,621). Issues of credibility and the weight to be given to the evidence were for the jury to resolve. Upon review of the record, we perceive no basis for overturning the verdict *(see, People v Herbert,*100 AD2d 883).

Defendant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the court’s charge on identification was not preserved for appellate review as no timely objection was made to the charge (CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Contes, supra).*

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1
 
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 In connection with the Annual Report of
Young Innovations, Inc., (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending
December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned Chief Executive Officer,
President, and Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
that based on their knowledge (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 as of and for the periods covered in the Report.
 
 /s/
      Alfred E. Brennan, Jr.Alfred
      E. Brennan, Jr., Chairman, Director and
              Chief
      Executive Officer
              
              /s/
      Arthur L. Herbst, Jr.Arthur
      L. Herbst, Jr.,
              President
      and Chief Financial Officer
 March 12,
2010
 
 The foregoing certification is being
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the
Form 10-K and shall not be considered filed as part of the
Form 10-K.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

GONZALO VAZQUEZ PEREZ,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D22-112

[February 16, 2023]

Appeal from the County Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Melinda K. Brown, Judge; L.T. Case No. 19-

007671MU10A.

Fred Haddad of Fred Haddad, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Alexandra A. Folley, 

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

KLINGENSMITH, C.J., WARNER and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                        319,241
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                      5,099,000
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                    0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                    0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                   511,161
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      2,802,115
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        2,842,500
<LOANS>                                    12,819,443
<ALLOWANCE>                                    60,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             22,300,260
<DEPOSITS>                                 15,342,794
<SHORT-TERM>                                        0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                           611,042
<LONG-TERM>                                         0
<COMMON>                                        4,232
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<OTHER-SE>                                  6,342,192
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             22,300,260
<INTEREST-LOAN>                               549,378
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              85,352
<INTEREST-OTHER>                              177,373
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                              812,103
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                            372,712
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            372,712
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                         439,391
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                               295,686
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               148,888
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                    148,888
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                  102,922
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0.28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.28
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                   7.36
<LOANS-NON>                                     4,800
<LOANS-PAST>                                        0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                    0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                     0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               60,000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       0
<RECOVERIES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              60,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           60,000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                             0


</TABLE>