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

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   1-MO
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       1,824,485
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                       4,795,409
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                     24,026,974
<ALLOWANCE>                                     75,094
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              35,110,457
<DEPOSITS>                                  24,064,009
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            345,517
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             8
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,700,923
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              35,110,457
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              1,459,851
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              217,558
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               230,375
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             1,907,784
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             810,345
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        1,097,439
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    5,500
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                957,738
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                187,964
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     187,964
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   126,639
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .18
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                       0
<LOANS-NON>                                    160,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                   160,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                72,000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               75,094
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            75,094
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                         75,094                       
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON

LAURA ANNE ALLEN,

Plaintiff,

v. 

CAROLYN COLVIN, Acting

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

Case No. 6:15-cv-00998-KI

JUDGMENT

Merrill Schneider

Schneider Kerr Law Offices

P.O. Box 14490

Portland, OR 97293

Attorney for Plaintiff

Billy J. Williams

United States Attorney

District of Oregon

Page 1 - JUDGMENT

Case 6:15-cv-00998-KI Document 22 Filed 05/25/16 Page 1 of 2
Janice E. Hebert

Assistant United States Attorney

1000 SW Third Ave., Ste. 600

Portland, OR 97204-2902

Kathryn A. Miller

Special Assistant United States Attorney

Office of the General Counsel

Social Security Administration

701 Fifth Ave., Ste. 2900 M/S 221A

Seattle, WA 98104-7075

Attorneys for Defendant

KING, Judge:

The decision of the Commissioner is reversed. This action is remanded to the

Commissioner under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 25th day of May, 2016. 

 /s/ Garr M. King 

Garr M. King

United States District Judge

PAGE 2 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-00998-KI Document 22 Filed 05/25/16 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
          This schedule  contains summary financial  information  extracted from
          Pen  Interconnect,  Inc.  June 30, 1997  financial  statements  and is
          qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<CIK>                         0001000266
<NAME>                        Pen Interconnect, Inc.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         15,128
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  3,239,378
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (236,083)
<INVENTORY>                                    4,575,543
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               9,220,188
<PP&E>                                         3,655,590
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,175,917)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 15,085,134
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          6,775,424
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          32,390
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     8,078,133
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   15,085,134
<SALES>                                        15,220,519
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               15,220,519
<CGS>                                          12,912,356
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  15,109,444
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               285,567
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             403,539
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                396,640
<INCOME-TAX>                                   163,100
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            233,540
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   233,540
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .08
        


</TABLE>
# C_2005331EN.01001701.xml

| 28.12.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.12.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/17

---

Notice inviting applications for authorisation to prospect for hydrocarbons in block M11 of the Dutch continental shelf

(2005/C 331/12)

(Text with EEA relevance)

The Minister for Economic Affairs of the Kingdom of the Netherlands hereby gives notice that an application has been received for authorisation to prospect for hydrocarbons in block M11 as indicated on the map appended as Annex 3 to the Mining Regulation (Mijnbouwregeling) (Government Gazette (Staatscourant) 2002, No 245).

Mijnbouwregeling

Staatscourant

With reference to Article 3(2) of Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons and the publication required by Article 15 of the Mining Act (Mijnbouwwet) (Bulletin of Acts and Decrees (Staatsblad) 2002, No 542), the Minister for Economic Affairs hereby invites interested parties to submit an application for authorisation to prospect for hydrocarbons in block M11.

Mijnbouwwet

Staatsblad

The Minister for Economic Affairs is the competent authority for the granting of authorisations. The criteria, conditions and requirements referred to in Articles 5(1), 5(2) and 6(2) of the Directive are set out in the Mining Act (Bulletin of Acts and Decrees 2002, No 542).

Applications may be submitted during the 13 weeks following the publication of this notice in the Official Journal of the European Union and should be sent to the Minister for Economic Affairs, for the attention of the Director of Energy Production, Prinses Beatrixlaan 5, The Hague, Netherlands, and marked ‘personal’. Applications submitted after the expiry of this period will not be considered.

Official Journal of the European Union

A decision on the applications will be taken not later than 12 months after the period has expired.

Further information can be obtained from the following telephone number: (31-70) 379 66 94.

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ivan Lewis, Appellant.

The defendant’s contention that the People failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is without merit. In reviewing the evidence underlying a criminal conviction, the standard to be applied is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, any rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt *(see, Jackson v Virginia,*443 US 307, 319; *People v Giuliano,*65 NY2d 766, 768; *People v Malizia,*62 NY2d 755, 757, *cert denied*469 US 932).

The issues of the accuracy of identification testimony and the credibility of witnesses are clearly questions of fact to be resolved by the jury *(see, People v Batts,*111 AD2d 761; *People v Di Girolamo,*108 AD2d 755) whose findings should not be lightly overturned on appeal *(see, People v Gruttola,*43 NY2d 116; *People v Bussey,*111 AD2d 403). Given the circumstances under which the complainant viewed the defendant during the robbery, his subsequent in-court identification and the unusual physical appearance of the defendant’s black beard, which contained a white spot, we find the evidence sufficient to support the verdict *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620, 621). Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Niehoff and Weinstein, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350

Solely for the purpose of complying with 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the undersigned Senior Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer of Nicholas Financial, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the three and six months ended September 30, 2010 (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/ Ralph T Finkenbrink                          
|Ralph T. Finkenbrink                             
|Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|                                                 
|Dated: November 12, 2010
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 Quarterly Report of Optical Cable Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended July 31, 2010 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned hereby certifies, 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 and Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) the information contained in the Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company as of July 31, 2010, and for the period then ended.



|                         |  |  |  |                                                                          
|------------------------ |  |  |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: September 14, 2010 |  |  |  | /s/ Neil D. Wilkin, Jr.                                                  
|                         |  |  |  | Neil D. Wilkin, Jr.                                                      
|                         |  |  |  | Chairman of the Board of Directors, President and Chief Executive Officer
#### SCHWARZ v. LONG ISLAND CITY.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Depart*1133ment.

December 2, 1895.)

Action by Charles H. Schwarz against Long Island City.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.
PAGE 1 – ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

COBBLER NEVADA, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

STACY SHAFFER,

Defendant.

Case No. 3:15-cv-01233-SB

ORDER

Michael H. Simon, District Judge.

United States Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman issued Findings and 

Recommendation in this case on October 26, 2016. ECF 48. Judge Beckerman recommended 

that Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment be granted and a default judgment be entered in the 

amount of statutory damages of $750. No party has filed objections.

Under the Federal Magistrates Act (“Act”), the court may “accept, reject, or modify, in 

whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1). If a party files objections to a magistrate’s findings and recommendations, “the court 

shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings 

or recommendations to which objection is made.” Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).

If no party objects, the Act does not prescribe any standard of review. See Thomas v. Arn, 

474 U.S. 140, 152 (1985) (“There is no indication that Congress, in enacting [the Act], intended 

to require a district judge to review a magistrate’s report to which no objections are filed.”); 

Case 3:15-cv-01233-SB Document 52 Filed 11/17/16 Page 1 of 2
PAGE 2 – ORDER

United States. v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (holding that the 

court must review de novo magistrate’s findings and recommendations if objection is made, “but 

not otherwise”). 

Although review is not required in the absence of objections, the Act “does not preclude 

further review by the district judge[] sua sponte . . . under a de novo or any other standard.” 

Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154. Indeed, the Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) 

recommend that “[w]hen no timely objection is filed,” the court review the magistrate’s findings 

and recommendations for “clear error on the face of the record.”

No party having made objections, this Court follows the recommendation of the Advisory 

Committee and reviews Judge Beckerman’s Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the 

face of the record. No such error is apparent. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge 

Beckerman’s Findings and Recommendation, ECF 48. Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment 

(ECF 36) is GRANTED. A judgment will be entered against Defendant, permanently enjoining 

her from infringing Plaintiff’s rights in the movie The Cobbler and awarding $750 in statutory 

damages.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 17th day of November, 2016.

/s/ Michael H. Simon

Michael H. Simon

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-01233-SB Document 52 Filed 11/17/16 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           3,478
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          70,501
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     10,629
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        913,004
<ALLOWANCE>                                     17,818
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,012,873
<DEPOSITS>                                     844,949
<SHORT-TERM>                                    23,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             13,936
<LONG-TERM>                                     21,250
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        55,917
<OTHER-SE>                                      53,821
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               1,012,873
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 22,798
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,337
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                24,135
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              10,952
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 513
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           12,670
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    1,200
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  5,118
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,638
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       3,914
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,914
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .55
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .53
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.15
<LOANS-NON>                                      7,477
<LOANS-PAST>                                       426
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   796
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                 14,320
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                16,811
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      255
<RECOVERIES>                                        62
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               17,818
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            17,818
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

MEDFORD DIVISION 

TROY LEWIS HANSEN, 

Plaintiff, 

V. 

COMMISSIONER, 

SOCIAL SECURITY 

ADMINISTRATION, 

Defendant. 

Case No: 3:15-cv-01124-CL 

ORDER 

Upon consideration of the parties' Stipulation Re: Attorney Fees Under the Equal Access 

to Justice Act ("EAJA"), 28 U.S.C. 2412(d), 

It is hereby ORDERED that the stipulation is granted. Defendant shall pay attorney's 

fees to Plaintiff pursuant to the EAJA in the amount of Five Thousand Two Hundred Forty-Four 

Dollars ($5,244.00.) 

Pursuant to Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 S.Ct 2521, 2528-29 (2010), EAJA fees awarded by this 

Court belong to Plaintiff and are subject to offset under the Treasury Offset Program (31 U.S.C. 

§ 3716(c)(3)(B) (2006)). If after receiving the Court's EAJA fee order, the Commissioner 

determines upon effectuation of the Court's EAJA fee order that Plaintiff does not owe a debt 

that is subject to offset under the Treasury Offset Program, the fees will be made payable to 

Plaintiff's attorney. However, if there is a debt owed that is subject to offset under the Treasury 

Offset Program, any remaining EAJA fees after offset will be paid by a check payable to 

Plaintiff but delivered to Plaintiff's attorney. 

IT IS SO ORDERED AND DATED this 2 2 dayo;~ 

Mark D. Clarke 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:15-cv-01124-CL Document 27 Filed 08/22/16 Page 1 of 1
1 – ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

RAZIEL OLAM BRIAH,

No. 3:15-cv-00403-AC

Plaintiff,

ORDER

v. 

 

REBECCA DOE and 

ROBERT DOE, 

 Defendants.

HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:

Magistrate Judge Acosta issued a Findings and Recommendation [32] on December 22, 

2015, in which he recommends that this Court grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss [9] and deny 

Defendants’ motion for a more definite statement [9] as moot. The matter is now before me 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).

Because no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation were 

timely filed, I am relieved of my obligation to review the record de novo. United States v. 

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); see also United States v. Bernhardt, 

840 F.2d 1441, 1444 (9th Cir. 1988) (de novo review required only for portions of Magistrate 

Case 3:15-cv-00403-AC Document 35 Filed 02/01/16 Page 1 of 2
2 – ORDER

Judge's report to which objections have been made). Having reviewed the legal principles de 

novo, I find no error.

CONCLUSION 

The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Acosta’s Findings & Recommendation [32]. 

Therefore, for the reasons stated in the record, the Court grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss 

[9] without prejudice and denies Defendants’ motion for a more definite statement [9] as moot. If 

Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, he must do so within 10 days of the date below. 

In addition, the Court orders Plaintiff to remedy any defects in service of process if he files an 

amended complaint and to file proof of service with the Court within 30 days of filing an 

amended complaint. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this ____________ day of ______________________________ , 2016.

______________________________________________________ 

MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-00403-AC Document 35 Filed 02/01/16 Page 2 of 2