alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
HYNES & HOWES INSURANCE COUNSELORS, INC.
                             Statement of Cash Flow
              For the Years Ended September 30, 1997, 1996 and 1995
                 Increase (Decrease) in Cash and Cash Equivalent


                                                 Year Ended September 30,
                                          1997             1996            1995
Cash Flow from Operating Activities:
   Interest Received                 $ 115,571       $  171,544      $  176,566
   Miscellaneous Income Received           814              501              11
   Interest Paid                       (41,517)        (101,493)       (105,522)
   Legal, Audit and Management
     Fees Paid                         (49,655)         (46,155)        (41,329)
   Repairs and Maintenance Paid        (13,799)            (824)            (19)
   Cash Paid to Suppliers for
      Operating Expenses                (7,860)          (8,176)        (16,045)

      Net Cash Provided by
        Operating Activities         $   3,554       $   15,397      $   13,662

Cash Flows from Investing Activities:
   Principal Collected on Sale of
     Agency Contracts                $       0       $        0      $  239,020
   Principal Collected on Sale of
     Tanglefoot Apartments Contract  1,572,240            9,907          12,254
   Principal Collected on
     Real Estate Contracts              12,827              791              29
   Purchase of Real Estate Contracts  (526,413)               0        (128,496)
   Purchase of Real Estate             (31,848)               0               0
   Payments on Real Estate Mortgages  (991,555)         (42,507)        (38,478)
   Payment of Commissions Payable            0                0         (81,000)
   Buyers Escrow Collected (Paid)       (6,650)         (20,603)            920
   Apartment Building Escrow
     Received (Paid)                         0          (13,013)         (9,450)
   Purchase (Redeem) Tax Certificates   (1,459)             (72)         (2,883)
   Down Payment on Real Estate             500                0               0

      Net Cash Provided (Used) by
         Investing Activities        $  27,642       $  (65,497)     $   (8,084)

Cash Flows from Financing Activities:
   Proceeds (Payments) from Loans    $ (27,000)      $   27,000      $   (2,000)

      Net Cash Provided (Used) by
         Financing Activities        $ (27,000)      $   27,000      $   (2,000)

   Net Increase (Decrease) in Cash and
      Cash Equivalents                   4,196       $  (23,100)     $    3,578
Cash and Cash Equivalents at Beginning
   of Year                               6,479           29,579          26,001

Cash and Cash Equivalents at
   End of Year                       $  10,675       $    6,479      $   29,579


Notes to Financial Statements are an integral part of these statements.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 713 

To require the President’s Working Group on Financial Markets to conduct 

a study on the hedge fund industry. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 27, 2009 

Mr. CASTLE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To require the President’s Working Group on Financial 

Markets to conduct a study on the hedge fund industry. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Hedge Fund Study 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. STUDY AND REPORT ON HEDGE FUND INDUSTRY. 

7 (a) STUDY.—The President’s Working Group on Fi8 nancial Markets shall conduct a study of the hedge fund 

9 industry. The study shall include an analysis of— 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•HR 713 IH

1 (1) the changing nature of hedge funds and 

2 what characteristics define a hedge fund; 

3 (2) the growth of hedge funds within financial 

4 markets; 

5 (3) the growth of pension funds investing in 

6 hedge funds; 

7 (4) whether hedge fund investors are able to 

8 protect themselves adequately from the risk associ9 ated with their investments; 

10 (5) whether hedge fund leverage is effectively 

11 constrained; 

12 (6) the potential risks hedge fund pose to finan13 cial markets or to investors; 

14 (7) various international approaches to the reg15 ulation of hedge funds; and 

16 (8) the benefits of the hedge fund industry to 

17 the economy and the markets. 

18 (b) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS.—Not later 

19 than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, 

20 the President’s Working Group on Financial Markets shall 

21 submit a report on its findings to the Committee on Fi22 nancial Services of the House of Representatives and the 

23 Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of 

24 the Senate. The report shall include recommendations, in25 cluding— 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
3 

•HR 713 IH

1 (1) any proposed legislation relating to appro2 priate disclosure requirements for hedge funds; 

3 (2) the type of information hedge funds should 

4 disclose to regulators and to the public; 

5 (3) any efforts the hedge fund industry or regu6 lators of financial institutions should undertake to 

7 improve practices or provide examples of successful 

8 industry initiatives; and 

9 (4) any oversight responsibilities that members 

10 of the President’s Working Group should have over 

11 the hedge fund industry, and the degree and scope 

12 of such oversight. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
Case 1:07-cr-00555-AKH     Document 5-5      Filed 07/12/2007     Page 1 of 14

Case 1:07-cr-00555-AKH     Document 5-5      Filed 07/12/2007     Page 2 of 14

Case 1:07-cr-00555-AKH     Document 5-5      Filed 07/12/2007     Page 3 of 14

Case 1:07-cr-00555-AKH     Document 5-5      Filed 07/12/2007     Page 4 of 14

Case 1:07-cr-00555-AKH     Document 5-5      Filed 07/12/2007     Page 5 of 14

Case 1:07-cr-00555-AKH     Document 5-5      Filed 07/12/2007     Page 6 of 14

Case 1:07-cr-00555-AKH     Document 5-5      Filed 07/12/2007     Page 7 of 14

Case 1:07-cr-00555-AKH     Document 5-5      Filed 07/12/2007     Page 8 of 14

Case 1:07-cr-00555-AKH     Document 5-5      Filed 07/12/2007     Page 9 of 14

Case 1:07-cr-00555-AKH     Document 5-5      Filed 07/12/2007     Page 10 of 14

Case 1:07-cr-00555-AKH     Document 5-5      Filed 07/12/2007     Page 11 of 14

Case 1:07-cr-00555-AKH     Document 5-5      Filed 07/12/2007     Page 12 of 14

Case 1:07-cr-00555-AKH     Document 5-5      Filed 07/12/2007     Page 13 of 14

Case 1:07-cr-00555-AKH     Document 5-5      Filed 07/12/2007     Page 14 of 14
# CE2010137EN.01005001.xml

| 27.5.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 137/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.5.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 137/50

---

Thursday 2 April 2009Information in the veterinary and zootechnical fields *

P6_TA(2009)0196

European Parliament legislative resolution of 2 April 2009 on the proposal for a Council decision correcting Directive 2008/73/EC simplifying procedures of listing and publishing information in the veterinary and zootechnical fields and amending Directives 64/432/EEC, 77/504/EEC, 88/407/EEC, 88/661/EEC, 89/361/EEC, 89/556/EEC, 90/426/EEC, 90/427/EEC, 90/428/EEC, 90/429/EEC, 90/539/EEC, 91/68/EEC, 91/496/EEC, 92/35/EEC, 92/65/EEC, 92/66/EEC, 92/119/EEC, 94/28/EC, 2000/75/EC, Decision 2000/258/EC and Directives 2001/89/EC, 2002/60/EC and 2005/94/EC (COM(2009)0045 – C6-0079/2009 – 2009/0016(CNS))

2010/C 137 E/10

(Consultation procedure)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament

having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2009)0045),

having regard to Article 37 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6-0079/2009),

having regard to Rules 51 and 43(1) of its Rules of Procedure,

having regard to the report of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (A6-0141/2009),

| 1. | Approves the Commission proposal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Approves the Commission proposal;

| 2. | Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament;

| 3. | Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to amend the Commission proposal substantially; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to amend the Commission proposal substantially;

| 4. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission.

---
V 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 736 

For the relief of Aluisa Zace and Ledia Zace. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 28, 2009 

Mr. FILNER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

For the relief of Aluisa Zace and Ledia Zace. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR ALUISA 

4 ZACE AND LEDIA ZACE. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subsections (a) 

6 and (b) of section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality 

7 Act, Aluisa Zace and Ledia Zace shall each be eligible for 

8 issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status 

9 to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent resi10 dence upon filing an application for issuance of an immi11 grant visa under section 204 of such Act or for adjustment 

12 of status to lawful permanent resident. 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•HR 736 IH

1 (b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—If Aluisa Zace or 

2 Ledia Zace enters the United States before the filing dead3 line specified in subsection (c), she shall be considered to 

4 have entered and remained lawfully and shall, if otherwise 

5 eligible, be eligible for adjustment of status under section 

6 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as of the date 

7 of the enactment of this Act. 

8 (c) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF

9 FEES.—Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the ap10 plication for issuance of an immigrant visa or the applica11 tion for adjustment of status is filed with appropriate fees 

12 within 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

13 (d) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBER.— 

14 Upon the granting of an immigrant visa or permanent res15 idence to Aluisa Zace and Ledia Zace, the Secretary of 

16 State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 2, dur17 ing the current or next following fiscal year, the total num18 ber of immigrant visas that are made available to natives 

19 of the country of the aliens’ birth under section 203(a) 

20 of the Immigration and Nationality Act or, if applicable, 

21 the total number of immigrant visas that are made avail22 able to natives of the country of the aliens’ birth under 

23 section 202(e) of such Act. 

24 (e) DENIAL OF PREFERENTIAL IMMIGRATION

25 TREATMENT FOR CERTAIN RELATIVES.—The natural 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
3 

•HR 736 IH

1 parents, brothers, and sisters of Aluisa Zace and Ledia 

2 Zace shall not, by virtue of such relationship, be accorded 

3 any right, privilege, or status under the Immigration and 

4 Nationality Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-24-00510-CV

In re R.B. Ethridge

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM BELL COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Relator R. B. Ethridge has filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus requesting 

that we compel “the clerk responsible” to provide relator at no cost with a copy of an article 

11.07 application for writ of habeas corpus. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.07, § 1 (noting 

that article 11.07 “establishes the procedures for an application for writ of habeas corpus in 

which the applicant seeks relief from a felony judgment imposing a penalty other than death”).

1 

Relator asserts that both the Bell County District Clerk’s Office and Bell County Clerk’s Office

have refused to provide relator with the form in violation of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 

73.1(b) and article 1, section 19 of the Texas Constitution. See Tex. Const. art. I, § 19 (providing 

that no Texas citizen “shall be deprived of life, liberty, property, privileges or immunities, or in 

any manner disfranchised, except by the due course of the law of the land”); Tex. R. App. P. 

73.1(b) (requiring that district clerk of county of conviction make article 11.07 application

1 Relator’s underlying conviction appears to be a misdemeanor, for which postconviction 

habeas relief is authorized by article 11.09, not 11.07. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.09(b) 
2

available “on request, without charge”). Attached to the petition are letters from both 

clerks’ offices.

A court of appeals may issue a writ of mandamus against “a judge of a district, 

statutory county, statutory probate county, or county court in the court of appeals district.” Tex. 

Gov’t Code § 22.221(b). We have no jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against a district 

clerk unless necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.221(a); In re 

Washington, 7 S.W.3d 181, 182 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, orig. proceeding). A writ 

of mandamus is not necessary to enforce our jurisdiction in this case.

Accordingly, we dismiss relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. See Tex. Gov’t 

Code 22.221(a), (b).

__________________________________________

Edward Smith, Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Smith and Theofanis

Filed: August 22, 2024

(“After final conviction in any misdemeanor case, the applicant or petitioner may apply to the 

judge of the court in which the applicant was convicted.”).
Case 1:07-cv-04510-AKH Document 14 Filed 09/14/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-04510-AKH Document 14 Filed 09/14/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-04510-AKH Document 14 Filed 09/14/2007 Page 3 of 3
EXHIBIT 10.16Director Compensation Plan     Members of the Board of Directors of enherent Corp. will receive the following compensationeffective May 10, 2005: (i) directors of the Company will receive $1,000 per quarter for service onthe Company’s Board of Directors. (ii) the chairman of the Audit Committee of the Company’s Boardof Directors will receive $2,000 per year for service in that role, (iii) each other members of theAudit Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors will receive $500 per meeting of the AuditCommittee, and (iv) each member of the Compensation Committee of the Company’s Board of Directorswill receive $500 per meeting of the Compensation Committee.
Case 1:07-cv-05730-BSJ Document 18 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 1 of 5Case 1:07-cv-05730-BSJ Document 18 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 2 of 5Case 1:07-cv-05730-BSJ Document 18 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 3 of 5Case 1:07-cv-05730-BSJ Document 18 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 4 of 5Case 1:07-cv-05730-BSJ Document 18 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 5 of 5
#### Misael Antonio ALVARADO-DAVILA, Francisco Javier Fonseca-Davila, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 08-71061.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*637Submitted April 5, 2011.*

Filed April 26, 2011.

Garish Sarin, Esquire, Law Offices of Garish Sarin, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.

Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Misael Antonio Alvarado-Davila, a native and citizen of Nicaragua, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings and review de novo legal determinations. *Husyev v. Mukasey,*528 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir.2008). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Alvarado-Davila did not establish past persecution. *See Wakkary v. Holder,*558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.2009) (harm to others must be closely tied to petitioner); *see also Gormley v. Ashcroft,*364 F.3d 1172, 1177-78 (9th Cir.2004) (mere economic disadvantage or discrimination does not amount to persecution). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that AlvaradoDavila does not have a well-founded fear of persecution on account of his family membership because his siblings, who are similarly situated, live unharmed in Nicaragua. *See Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey,*542 F.3d 738, 743 (9th Cir.2008).

To the extent the Alvarado-Davila contends the IJ failed to consider his fear of persecution on account of political opinion, independent of his social group claim, the contention is unexhausted. *See Barron v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.2004).

Petitioner’s remaining challenges to the denial of his asylum claim are unavailing. Accordingly, his asylum claim fails.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### MESSINGER *v.*THE EASTERN OREGON LAND COMPANY.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT.

No. 24.

Submitted November 15, 1897.

Decided January 8, 1900.

The judgment in this case affirmed upon the authority of *United States*v. *Oregon and California Railroad Company*and *Wilcox v. The Eastern Oregon Land Co.*

The case is stated in the opinion. This case was submitted with *Wilcox*v. *Eastern Oregon Land Co., ante,*51, and a like disposition was made of it.

*Mr. John M. Gearin*for appellant.

*Mr. James K. Kelly*for appellees.

Mr. Justice Harlan

delivered the opinion of the court.

The parties in this case and in *Wilcox*v. *Eastern Oregon Land Company*stipulated that the bills, answers, decrees, assignments of error, and all other papers and proceedings in both causes, were exactly alike, with the exception that in this case it is alleged that the land patented to the defendant Messinger was patented under the provisions of the act of Congress approved May 20,1862, entitled “ An act to secure homesteads to actual settlers on the public domain,” 12 Stat. 392, c. 75, and the acts supplemental thereto; that the lands patented were the south half of the northwest quarter and lots three and four of section three, township two south, of range sixteen east of the Willamette meridian, in Oregon, and were situated within twenty miles of the line of the general route of the Northern Pacific Railroad Company’s road as designated on its map "of August 17, 1870, and that the patent was dated the 17th day of August, 1894.

It is also stipulated by the parties to the two suits,- by their *59respective attorneys, that, unless this court otherwise ordered, only the record in the Wilcox suit should be printed, and that the appeal in this case might be heard and submitted without printing the record thereof.

Upon the authority of *United States*v. *Oregon & California Railroad Company*and *Wilcox*v. *Eastern Oregon Land Com*pany, just decided, the decree of the Circuit Court of Appeals, reversing the judgment of the Circuit Court and directing a decree in favor of the plaintiff, the Eastern Oregon Land ComPanF> is

*Affirmed.*

Me. Justice McKenna did not participate in the decision of this case.
Exhibit 99.2

                           Certification of Controller
                         Pursuant to Section 906 of the
                           Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In  connection  with this  quarterly  report on Form 10-QSB of United  Tennessee
Bankshares,   Inc.  I,  Chris  H.  Triplett,   Controller  of  United  Tennessee
Bankshares,  Inc., certify, 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 this report fairly presents,  in all material
     respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of  operations  of United
     Tennessee Bankshares, Inc.

                                                 /s/ Chris H. Triplett
Date:  November 13, 2002                         -------------------------------
                                                 Chris H. Triplett
                                                 Controller
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and

Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors

so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

No. 14-BG-324

IN RE: MICHAEL C. WORSHAM,

Respondent.

Bar Registration No. 462830 BDN: 96-14

BEFORE: Beckwith, Associate Judge, and King and Reid, Senior Judges. 

ORDER

(FILED - May 7, 2015)

On consideration ofthe certified order indefinitely suspending respondent from

the practice of law in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland,

this court’s April 3, 2014, order suspending respondent and directing him to show

cause why reciprocal discipline should not be imposed, the response and respondent’s

affidavit as required by D.C. Bar R. XI, §14 (g) filed on May 3, 2014, the statement

ofBar Counsel regarding reciprocal discipline and request to stay the proceeding, this

court’s June 9, 2014, order staying the matter until resolution of the pending

disciplinary matter in the state of Maryland, a certified order of the Court of Appeals

of Maryland disbarring respondent from the practice of law in that jurisdiction, see

Attorney Grievance Com’n of Maryland v. Worsham, 105 A.3d 515 (Md. 2014), this

court’s January 26, 2015, order that vacated the stay and directed respondent to show

cause why reciprocal discipline of disbarment should not be imposed, the statement

of Bar Counsel, and respondent’s lodged response to Bar Counsel that includes a

request for oral argument, and it appearing that respondent does not rely on any of the

established bases for challenging reciprocal discipline, see D.C. Bar R. XI § 11 (c),

but is attempting to improperly re-litigate the discipline imposed by the state of

Maryland, see In re Zdravkovich, 831 A.2d 964, 969 (D.C. 2003) (“Put simply, 

reciprocal discipline proceedings are not a forum to reargue the foreign discipline”),

it is

ORDERED that the Clerk shall file the lodged response of respondent. It is
No. 14-BG-324

FURTHER ORDERED that respondent’s request for oral argument is

denied. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that Michael C. Worshamis hereby disbarred fromthe

practice of law in the District of Columbia, nunc pro tunc to May 3, 2014. 

PER CURIAM
Case 1:07-cv-04511-AKH Document 30 Filed 09/14/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-04511-AKH Document 30 Filed 09/14/2007 Page 2 of 2