alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>
 
 
<ARTICLE> 6 
<CIK> 0000744822
<NAME> Fidelity Investment Trust
<SERIES>
 <NUMBER> 221
 <NAME> Fidelity Nordic Fund
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>
<C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 year          
 
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             oct-31-1997   
 
<PERIOD-END>                  oct-31-1997   
 
<INVESTMENTS-AT-COST>         65,922        
 
<INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE>        73,967        
 
<RECEIVABLES>                 466           
 
<ASSETS-OTHER>                0             
 
<OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS>          0             
 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                74,433        
 
<PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES>      780           
 
<SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT>       0             
 
<OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES>     375           
 
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES>           1,155         
 
<SENIOR-EQUITY>               0             
 
<PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON>      57,887        
 
<SHARES-COMMON-STOCK>         4,596         
 
<SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR>         2,417         
 
<ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT>     436           
 
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII>        0             
 
<ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS>       6,910         
 
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS>      0             
 
<ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC>      8,045         
 
<NET-ASSETS>                  73,278        
 
<DIVIDEND-INCOME>             1,464         
 
<INTEREST-INCOME>             171           
 
<OTHER-INCOME>                (204)         
 
<EXPENSES-NET>                971           
 
<NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME>       460           
 
<REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT>      6,923         
 
<APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT>     5,718         
 
<NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS>         13,101        
 
<EQUALIZATION>                0             
 
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME>     149           
 
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS>      297           
 
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER>         0             
 
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD>       6,328         
 
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED>   4,182         
 
<SHARES-REINVESTED>           34            
 
<NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS>        42,407        
 
<ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR>       144           
 
<ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR>     296           
 
<OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR>       0             
 
<OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR>    0             
 
<GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES>         511           
 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            0             
 
<GROSS-EXPENSE>               971           
 
<AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS>          68,464        
 
<PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN>         12.770        
 
<PER-SHARE-NII>               .100          
 
<PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC>       3.190         
 
<PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND>          .050          
 
<PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS>     .100          
 
<RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL>          0             
 
<PER-SHARE-NAV-END>           15.940        
 
<EXPENSE-RATIO>               142           
 
<AVG-DEBT-OUTSTANDING>        0             
 
<AVG-DEBT-PER-SHARE>          0
Thomas J. DART, Sheriff, Cook County, Illinois, petitioner, v. BACKPAGE.COM, LLC.

No. 15-1321.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
Exhibit 10.5


 


UNSECURED PROMISSORY NOTE









February 8, 2016


U.S. $50,000.00 


 












FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned, Eos Petro, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Issuer"), hereby promises to pay to the order of Plethora Enterprises, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company (the "Payee"), at such place as the Payee shall direct in writing, the principal sum of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00), with interest at 10.00% on the unpaid balance.  All references to Dollars herein are to lawful currency of the United States of America.







All unpaid principal of this Note and accrued interest shall be due and payable on July 1, 2016 (the "Maturity Date"). This Note may be prepaid at any time in whole or in part without penalty.







In any action at law or in equity to enforce or construe any provisions or rights under this Note, the unsuccessful party or parties to such litigation, as determined by a court pursuant to a final offer, judgment or decree, shall pay to the successful party or parties all costs, expenses and reasonable attorneys' fees incurred by such successful party.







This Note and all actions arising out of or in connection with this Note shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California, without regard to the conflicts of law provisions of the State of California, or of any other state.

















Eos Petro, Inc.


A Nevada corporation












By: /s/ Nikolas Konstant


    Nikolas Konstant


    Its: Chief Financial Officer
Alexander Nathan DAVIS, petitioner, v. MINNESOTA.

No. 15-1271.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Minnesota denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1597 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1597

 Encouraging the United Kingdom to investigate British Petroleum (BP) 
                     for foreign corrupt practices.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 30, 2010

    Mr. Maffei (for himself, Mr. Lee of New York, and Mr. McMahon) 
submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 
                           on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Encouraging the United Kingdom to investigate British Petroleum (BP) 
                     for foreign corrupt practices.

Whereas Libyan Abdel Baset al-Megrahi was convicted for the 1988 bombing of Pan 
        Am Flight 103, which killed 270 people, including 189 United States 
        citizens;
Whereas the Scottish courts released al-Megrahi from prison on August 20, 2009, 
        under the understanding that he was suffering from terminal prostate 
        cancer;
Whereas the Scottish authorities have never clarified why al-Megrahi could not 
        receive humane treatment while still in captivity;
Whereas al-Megrahi seems to have well outlived his original diagnosis;
Whereas it is very troubling that al-Megrahi received a hero's welcome to his 
        home country of Libya;
Whereas British Petroleum (BP) admitted on July 15, 2010, that a delayed 
        prisoner-transfer between Britain and Libya ``could have a negative 
        impact'' on BP's oil negotiations;
Whereas there are allegations that BP inappropriately attempted to affect the 
        Scottish Government's decision and possibly even the doctor's diagnosis; 
        and
Whereas al-Megrahi's release sends an incredibly offensive message to the 
        families that lost loved ones on Pan Am Flight 103: Now, therefore, be 
        it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives encourages the United 
Kingdom to investigate British Petroleum (BP) for foreign corrupt 
practices.
                                 <all>
```
#### Martha Ramirez PLACIDO; Rubysela Arteaga Ramirez, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-73566.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 26, 2008. *

Filed Sept. 8, 2008.

Martha Ramirez Placido, El Monte, CA, pro se.

*575Rubysela Arteaga Ramirez, El Monte, CA, pro se.

Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Virginia Lum Fax, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: SCHROEDER, KLEINFELD, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Martha Ramirez Placido and her minor daughter, Rubysela Arteaga Ramirez, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision pretermitting Ramirez Placido’s application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s continuous physical presence determination. *Lopez-Alvarado v. Ashcroft,*381 F.3d 847, 851 (9th Cir.2004). We review de novo claims of constitutional violations in immigration proceedings. *Iturribarria v. INS,*321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review.

The record does not compel the conclusion that Ramirez Placido established the requisite continuous physical presence because she failed to provide sufficient supporting documentation or witnesses attesting to her presence prior to 1995. *See Singh-Kaur v. INS,*183 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.1999) (a contrary result is not compelled where there is “[t]he possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Ramirez Placido’s contention that the ten-year continuous physical presence requirement violates her due process rights is foreclosed by *Padilla-Padilla v. Gonzales,*463 F.3d 972, 979 (9th Cir.2006).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
H. Res. 1272 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

May 5, 2010. 

Whereas the year 2010 marks the 40th anniversary of the 

Kent State University shootings that occurred on May 4, 

1970; 

Whereas, on such date, Ohio National Guardsmen opened fire 

on Kent State students who were protesting the United 

States invasion of Cambodia and the ongoing Vietnam 

War; 

Whereas four unarmed students (Allison Krause, Jeffrey Miller, Sandra Scheuer, and William Schroeder) were killed 

and nine others (Alan Canfora, John Cleary, Thomas 

Grace, Dean Kahler, Joseph Lewis, Donald MacKenzie, 

James Russell, Robert Stamps, and Douglas Wrentmore) 

were injured; 

Whereas the site of the May 4 shootings was entered in the 

National Register of Historic Places, the official list of 

the Nation’s historic places worthy of preservation, in 

February 2010; 

Whereas, to preserve the memory of the May 4 shootings and 

encourage inquiry, learning, and reflection, Kent State 

has established a number of resources, including the May 

4 Memorial, individual student memorial markers and 

scholarships in memory of the four students mentioned 
2 

•HRES 1272 EH 

above who were killed, an experimental college course entitled ‘‘May 4, 1970 and its Aftermath’’, and an annual 

commemoration sponsored by the May 4 Task Force; and 

Whereas Kent State has engaged the internationally renowned design services firm, Gallagher & Associates, to 

assist in the development of the May 4 visitors center as 

a central place where individuals can explore and better 

understand the May 4 shootings: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives, in commemoration of the 40th year anniversary of the Kent State 

University shootings that occurred on May 4, 1970— 

(1) recognizes the tragedy of the May 4 shootings 

and the implications that the shootings have had not 

only on Kent State and the local community, but also on 

the Nation and the world; and 

(2) applauds the development of the May 4 visitors 

center as an additional primary resource to preserve and 

communicate the history of the May 4 shootings, its 

larger ethical and societal context and impact, and its 

enduring meaning for our democratic Nation. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
H. Res. 1568 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

July 29, 2010. 

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 

shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 

5893) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to create 

jobs through increased investment in infrastructure, to eliminate loopholes which encourage companies to move operations 

offshore, and for other purposes. All points of order against 

consideration of the bill are waived except those arising under 

clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The bill shall be considered as 

read. All points of order against provisions in the bill are 

waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 

on the bill to final passage without intervening motion except: 

(1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the 

chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 

Ways and Means; and (2) one motion to recommit. 

SEC. 2. The requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for 

a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on 

Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is waived 
2 

•HRES 1568 EH 

with respect to any resolution reported through the calendar 

day of August 1, 2010. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
-1- United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED June 27, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk REVISED JUNE 28, 2005
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-60833 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee

v. JAMES O. OGLE,

Defendant - Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:In our previous opinion in this case, we affirmed DefendantAppellant Ogle’s conviction and sentence. See United States v. Ogle , No. 03-60833, 2004 WL 78109 (5th Cir. 2004) (per curiam) (unpublished). Following our judgment, Ogle filed a petition for certiorari, in which he challenged for the first time the constitutionality of the Sentencing Guidelines as applied to him. The Supreme Court granted Ogle’s petition for certiorari, vacated1 See Procter & Gamble Co. v. Amway Corp. , 376 F.3d 496, 499

(5 th Cir. 2004)(party waived argument not included in original brief to panel); Yokey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5 th Cir. 1993). See also 16A C. W RIGHT , A. M ILLER & E. C OOPER , F EDERAL P RACTICE AND P ROCEDURE § 3974.1 at 501 (1999)(issues not raised in appellant’s initial brief normally will not be considered by the court); F ED . R. A PP . P. 28 (a)(9)(A) which states that an appellant’s brief must contain “appellant’s contentions and the reasons for them, with citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which the appellant relies.” -2- our judgment, and remanded the case to this court for further consideration in light of United States v. Booker , 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). We now reconsider the matter in light of Booker and decide to reinstate our previous judgment affirming Ogle’s conviction and sentence. Because Ogle did not raise any Booker -related challenges to his sentence until his petition for certiorari, we will not review his claim absent extraordinary circumstances. United States v. Taylor , No. 03-10167, 2005 WL 1155245, at *1 (5th Cir. May 17, 2005). Our cases make it clear that an argument not raised in appellant’s original brief as required by F ED . R. A PP . P. 28 is waived. 1 Appellant argues that based on remarks made by the trial judge at sentencing, he can satisfy the plain-error test discussed in United States v. Mares , 402 F.3d 511, 520-22 (5th Cir. 2005). Even if appellant can satisfy the plain error test, he has not met the even more exacting test required to show the presence of extraordinary circumstances, which requires appellant to show a “possibility of injustice so grave as to warrant disregard of usual procedural rules.” McGee v. Estelle ,-3-

722 F.2d 1206, 1213 (5 th Cir. 1984) (footnote omitted). Accordingly, we decline to consider the merits of his Booker challenge. Having reconsidered our decision pursuant to the Supreme Court’s instructions, we REINSTATE OUR JUDGMENT affirming Ogle’s conviction and sentence.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          91,706
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                              50
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    468,154
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          38,321
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            38,599
<LOANS>                                      1,820,094
<ALLOWANCE>                                     24,284
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,511,700
<DEPOSITS>                                   2,058,673
<SHORT-TERM>                                   190,644
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             19,440
<LONG-TERM>                                     43,143
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,827
<OTHER-SE>                                     191,973
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               2,511,700
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                116,714
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               22,270
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   778
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               139,762
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              52,141
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              59,474
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           80,288
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    4,100
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  24
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 67,839
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 27,148
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      27,148
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    18,357
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.40
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.40
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.88
<LOANS-NON>                                     20,301
<LOANS-PAST>                                     1,112
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   868
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                 22,281
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                22,095
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    6,833
<RECOVERIES>                                     3,272
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               24,284
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            24,284
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-41186 Conference Calendar

HIPOLITO QUINONES, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus WILLIAM D. JOCK, Lieutenant, Michael Unit; RONALD J. HOLDER, JR., Correctional Officer, Michael Unit; CHARLIE L. HARRIS, Correctional Officer, Michael Unit; VELMA A. WOLF, Correctional Officer, Michael Unit, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:96-CV-355

- - - - - - - - - - October 23, 1997 Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Hipolito Quinones, Texas prisoner # 511282, proceeding pro

se and in forma pauperis (IFP), appeals the 28 U.S.C. § 1915 dismissal of his civil rights complaint. Quinones asserts that the defendants denied him food, recreation, a shower, medication, and adequate medical treatment. We review § 1915 dismissals forNo. 96-41186 -2- an abuse of discretion. Moore v. Mabus , 976 F.2d 268, 270 (5th Cir. 1992). We have reviewed the record and Quinones’ brief and we find no nonfrivolous issues. We dismiss the appeal for essentially the reasons relied upon by the magistrate judge. Quinones v. Jock , No. 6:96-CV-355 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 14, 1996). Quinones has abandoned the issues asserted in the district court that the defendants searched his cell, took his medication, and threatened him by failing to raise these issues on appeal.
See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987)(issues not asserted on appeal are abandoned). Quinones’ appeal is without arguable merit and thus frivolous. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d. 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. We caution Quinones that any additional frivolous appeals filed by him will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Quinones is further cautioned to review any pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are frivolous.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
No. 309.

#### Moore *v.*Lowe, Sheriff.

October 14, 1935.

*Mr. John C. Palmer,*
      *575
      *Jr.,*for petitioner.

*574Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia and motion for leave to proceed further *in forma pauperis*denied.

*575No appearance for respondent.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

# AGENCY:

Department of Defense, Defense Intelligence Agency. 

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

Pursuant to the provisions of subsection (d) of section 10 of Public Law 92-463, as amended by section 5 of Public Law 94-409, notice is hereby given that a closed meeting of the DIA Science and Technology Advisory Board, Standing Committee on Emerging Chemical and Biological Technology Advisory Committee of Experts has been scheduled as follows: 

# DATES:

June 13-14, 2001 (9 am to 5 pm).

# ADDRESSES:

Battelle Memorial Institute, 505 King Avenue, Columbus, Ohio 43201.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Jack A. McNulty, Chairman, Standing Committee on Emerging Chemical and Biological Technology Advisory Committee of Experts, DIA Science and Technology Advisory Board, Washington, DC 20340-1328, (202) 231-3507.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The entire meeting is devoted to the discussion of classified information as defined in section 552b(c)(I), title 5 of the U.S. Code, and therefore will be closed to the public. The Advisory Committee of Experts (ACE) will receive classified briefings on and discuss several cutting-edge technologies and advise the Director, DIA, on related scientific and technical matters.

Dated: June 12, 2001.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register, Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 01-15213  Filed 6-15-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-08-M