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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          40,335
<SECURITIES>                                    19,299
<RECEIVABLES>                                   59,147
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,193
<INVENTORY>                                     60,116
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               206,574
<PP&E>                                          49,862
<DEPRECIATION>                                  15,414
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 258,349
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           44,740
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            13
<OTHER-SE>                                     229,728
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   285,349
<SALES>                                         73,302
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                73,302
<CGS>                                           39,969
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   69,262
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   194
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 465
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,562
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,140
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,422
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.10


</TABLE>
Case 1:07-cv-01513-AKH Document 4 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 1 of 4Case 1:07-cv-01513-AKH Document 4 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 2 of 4Case 1:07-cv-01513-AKH Document 4 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 3 of 4Case 1:07-cv-01513-AKH Document 4 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 4 of 4
DM

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0286

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

LOGAN RAY GARDNER,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30-day extension of time, 

and good cause appearing therefor, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is granted an extension of time 

to and including August 3, 2021, within which to prepare, serve, and file its 

response brief.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 29 2021

06/29/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0286
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<CIK> 0000276235
<NAME> CENTRAL FIDELITY BANKS
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                         338,580
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          50,000
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               157,734
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                   422
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  3,654,887
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                      6,316,813
<ALLOWANCE>                                    110,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,810,974
<DEPOSITS>                                   7,985,898
<SHORT-TERM>                                 1,129,996
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            107,451
<LONG-TERM>                                    761,082
<COMMON>                                       200,964
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     625,583
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              10,810,974
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                528,368
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              239,906
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 4,715
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               772,989
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             319,725
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             432,295
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          340,694
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   26,713
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                238,329
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                154,422
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     154,422
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   105,370
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.65
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.61
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.35
<LOANS-NON>                                     48,763
<LOANS-PAST>                                    20,983
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   518
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               110,000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   46,281
<RECOVERIES>                                    19,568
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              110,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           110,000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-1066

DEBORAH A. MESSINA, 

 Petitioner – Appellant, 

 v. 

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, 

 Respondent – Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States Tax Court. (Tax Court 

No. 04-10926) 

Submitted: September 28, 2009 Decided: October 8, 2009 

Before MOTZ, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Deborah A. Messina, Appellant Pro Se. Sara Ann Ketchum, Robert 

W. Metzler, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, 

D.C., for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

 In a prior appeal, we upheld the Commissioner’s 

determination of a deficiency in Deborah Messina’s 1994 income 

taxes. However, based on the Commissioner’s concession that, 

subject to certain limitations, Messina was entitled to a 

deduction under 26 U.S.C. § 212(1) for the contingency fee paid 

to her attorney, we vacated in part and remanded the case to the 

tax court with instructions for that court to recompute 

Messina’s tax deficiency and penalties after affording her the 

deduction. The tax court has since adopted the Commissioner’s 

computation of Messina’s 1994 income tax liability and penalties 

for 1994, finding that the computation reflects this court’s 

mandate. 

 Messina filed this appeal from the tax court’s orders 

upholding the Commissioner’s determinations of a deficiency in 

her 1994 income taxes and additions to tax and denying her 

motion to vacate that order. We have reviewed the record and 

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the 

reasons stated by the tax court. See Messina v. Comm’r, IRS, 

Tax Ct. No. 04-10926 (U.S.T.C. June 24, 2008 & filed Sept. 25, 

2008; entered Sept. 26, 2008). We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

2 
3 

in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

AFFIRMED
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Edward K., Appellant.

— Adjudication unanimously affirmed. Counsel’s application to withdraw granted *(see, People v Crawford,*71 AD2d 38). (Appeal from adjudication of Erie County Court, Wolfgang, J. — youthful offender.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Green and Balio, JJ.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A18D0538. DARREN PETTY v. WILLIAM COREY.

In this dispossessory action brought by William Corey, against Darren Petty,

the magistrate court issued a writ of possession in favor of Cory on June 12, 2018.

Petty filed this pro se application for discretionary appeal on July 3, 2018.

1 We,

however, lack jurisdiction.

Generally, “[t]he only avenue of appeal available from [a] magistrate court

judgment is provided by OCGA § 15-10-41 (b) (1), which allowsfor a de novo appeal

to the state or superior court.” Handler v. Hulsey, 199 Ga. App. 751, 751 (406 SE2d

225) (1991). This Court may only address magistrate court matters that already have

been reviewed by the state or superior court. See Westwind Corp. v. Washington Fed.

S & L Assn., 195 Ga. App. 411, 411 (1) (393 SE2d 479) (1990); see also OCGA § 5-

6-35 (a) (1), (a) (11). Here, the only order in the application materials was issued by

the magistrate court, which appears not to have been reviewed by a state or superior

court.

2

Moreover, ordinarily, an application for discretionary appeal must be filed

within 30 days of entry of the order sought to be appealed. OCGA § 5-6-35 (d). The

1 Petty attempted to file his application earlier, but his application wasreturned

because it did not include a stamped “filed” copy of the order sought to be appealed.

2

In his application, Petty states that he is seeking “reversal of an order of

DEKALB County State Court upholding a decision of the DEKALB County State

Court.” However, as stated above, the only order included with the application

materials is from the magistrate court.

July 17, 2018
underlying subject matter of an appeal, however, controls over the relief sought in

determining the proper appellate procedure. Rebich v. Miles, 264 Ga. 467, 467-468

(448 SE2d 192) (1994). The underlying subject matter here is a dispossessory action. 

OCGA § 44-7-56 provides that an appeal from any dispossessory judgment must be

filed within seven days of the date the judgment was entered. See Ray M. Wright,

Inc. v. Jones, 239 Ga. App. 521, 522-523 (521 SE2d 456) (1999). Because Petty’s

application was filed 21 days after the magistrate court’s order was entered, this

application is untimely. Accordingly, this application is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

07/17/2018
#### STATE OF CONNECTICUT *v.*ANDREW C. HAIGHT

The Supreme Court docket number is SC 17435.

*Sarah Hanna,*special deputy assistant state’s attorney, in support of the petition.

*Brenden P. Leydon,*in opposition.

Decided May 17, 2005

The petition by the state of Connecticut for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 88 Conn. App. 235 (AC 24335), is granted, limited to the following issue:

“Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that at the time of his arrest the defendant was not operating his motor vehicle?”
#                                                                         Navy and Marine Corps Commence Large Scale Exercise 2023                                                                     

09 August 2023
                Large Scale Exercise 2023                            Large Scale Exercise 2023                            Large Scale Exercise 2023            SHARE IMAGE:Download ImageImage DetailsPhoto By: MCC Lauren HowesVIRIN: 230724-N-CQ682-6999 NORFOLK, Va. -- More than 10,000 Sailors and Marines across 22 times zones are now participating in Large Scale Exercise (LSE) 2023 as the U.S. Navy and U.S. Marine Corps officially kick off one of the maritime service’s largest exercises, Aug. 9.LSE 2023, integrating six Navy and Marine Corps component commands and seven U.S. numbered Fleets around the globe, merges real-world operations with virtually constructed scenarios to create a realistic training environment that allows Sailors and Marines to train the way they fight, regardless of geographic boundaries. The exercise reflects hypothetical scenarios and is designed to refine how the Navy works as one team on a global scale.“Our maritime operations have never been more global,” said Adm. Daryl Caudle, commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command. “We have to maintain the Nation's ability to project power globally for our country and to command and control that effectively requires us to do exercises like LSE 2023.”LSE 2023 was designed to reinforce the Chief of Naval Operations’ effort to set the stage for advancing naval doctrine and tactics by globally integrating fleet operations with emerging technologies to refine and validate Distributed Maritime Operations capabilities.“During LSE we are stressing our forces and learning to enhance our ability to sustain warfighting momentum in a naval campaign,” said Lt. Gen. Brian Cavanaugh, commander, Marine Forces Command. “There's no greater power on this earth today than the Navy-Marine Corps team that you have.”Scheduled to run through August 18, LSE 2023 will include live units underway, ranging from aircraft carriers to submarines; shore logistics support units; more than 30 virtual units (i.e., participating pier side or from training facilities, and staff headquarters around the world); and an unlimited array of constructive (computer-generated) units.In preparation for the exercise, Caudle and Cavanaugh spoke with retired Adm. James Foggo, Dean of the Center for Maritime Strategy, during a Maritime Nation Podcast.To listen to the podcast visit: https://youtu.be/RLufQNDU4NQFor more information, go to: https://www.dvidshub.net/feature/LSE23

Tags:
**LSE2023**Large Scale Exercise

Terms:
**Naval History**Aviation**Communities
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a)
and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of
the Principal Accounting Officer and the Trustee of Tidelands Royalty Trust B
(the Company), does hereby certify, to such persons knowledge, that: The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003 (the
Form 10-K) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the
information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as
of, and for, the periods presented in the Form 10-K. /s/ RON E. HOOPER
Ron E. Hooper
Senior Vice President Royalty Management on behalf of Bank of
America Private Bank, not in its individual capacity but solely as
the trustee of Tidelands Royalty Trust BDated: March 29, 2004
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Tidelands Royalty Trust B and will be retained by Tidelands
Royalty Trust B and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request. The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Form 10-K
pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63
of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as part
of the Form 10-K for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and is not incorporated by reference into any filing of the
company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any
general incorporation language in such filing.
Case 1:07-cv-05777-DC Document 7 Filed 06/04/2008 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM SEPTEMBER
30, 1998 QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                            87,072
<SECURITIES>                                   2,224,439
<RECEIVABLES>                                     16,432
<ALLOWANCES>                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               2,327,943
<PP&E>                                                 0
<DEPRECIATION>                                         0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2,327,943
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,153,460
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                         267,188
<OTHER-SE>                                        92,704
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2,327,943
<SALES>                                                0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   5,566
<CGS>                                                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   1,662
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                43,412
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (39,509)
<INCOME-TAX>                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (39,509)
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (39,509)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      (2.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (2.10)
        

</TABLE>
NUMBER 13-16-00670-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE RAYMOND DEBA

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Longoria

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam1

Relator Raymond Deba, proceeding pro se, filed a document in this Court seeking 

to compel the trial court to comply with an order issued by the Texas Court of Criminal 

Appeals in cause number WR-85,151-04 which granted relator habeas relief under article 

11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07 

(West, Westlaw through 2015 R.S.). Because the document does not reference an order 

or judgment subject to appeal and relator asks us to command a public officer to perform 

 

1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not 

required to do so.”); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
2

an act, we construe this document as a petition for writ of mandamus. See generally TEX.

R. APP. P. 25.1(a), (d); In re Castle Tex. Prod. Ltd. P'ship, 189 S.W.3d 400, 403 (Tex. 

App.—Tyler 2006, orig. proceeding) (“The function of the writ of mandamus is to compel 

action by those who by virtue of their official or quasi-official positions are charged with a 

positive duty to act.”) (citing Boston v. Garrison, 152 Tex. 253, 256 S.W.2d 67, 70 (1953)). 

The document filed by relator is unsupported by a record or appendix; however, it appears 

that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted relator’s application for writ of habeas 

corpus relief and mandate has now issued in that case. See generally Ex Parte Deba, 

No. WR-85,151-04, 2016 WL 4938346, at *1 (Tex. Crim. App. Sept. 14, 2016) (per 

curiam) (not designated for publication). 

We have no jurisdiction over post-conviction matters in final felony cases. TEX.

CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07; Ater v. Eighth Ct. of Apps., 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 1991) (stating that the exclusive authority to grant post-conviction relief rests 

with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals); In re Coronado, 980 S.W.2d 691, 692 (Tex. 

App.—San Antonio 1998, orig. proceeding). Moreover, the Texas Court of Criminal 

Appeals has the extraordinary writ power to compel compliance with its mandate. State 

ex rel. Wilson v. Harris, 555 S.W.2d 470, 472 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977). 

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus 

and the applicable law, is of the opinion that this Court lacks jurisdiction over this matter. 

See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07; State ex rel. Wilson, 555 S.W.2d at 472. 

Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

 

PER CURIAM
3

Do not publish. 

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the 

9th day of December, 2016.
##### 



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
  (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.
 /s/ Si SokolSi SokolChairman and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)March 1, 2006/s/ Matthew C. NolanMatthew C. NolanChief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary(Principal Financial Officer)March 1, 2006
 72
Case 1:07-cv-05344-AKH Document 9 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-05344-AKH Document 9 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 2 of 2