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


                                   
<S>                               <C>
<ARTICLE>                         5
<MULTIPLIER>                      1,000
                          
<PERIOD-TYPE>                     3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 Dec-31-1997              
<PERIOD-START>                    Apr-01-1997              
<PERIOD-END>                      Jun-30-1997
<CASH>                            10      
<SECURITIES>                      3,111,107      
<RECEIVABLES>                     0           
<ALLOWANCES>                      0         
<INVENTORY>                       0           
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  0<F1>            
<PP&E>                            0 
<DEPRECIATION>                    0            
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    3,111,720           
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             0<F1>
<BONDS>                           2,904,648    
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>             0           
<PREFERRED>                       0      
<COMMON>                          10            
<OTHER-SE>                        148,547          
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      3,111,720            
<SALES>                           0             
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  39,614        
<CGS>                             0       
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     0            
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  1,450           
<LOSS-PROVISION>                  600       
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                37,610        
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   (46)      
<INCOME-TAX>                      0          
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               (46)            
<DISCONTINUED>                    0          
<EXTRAORDINARY>                   0            
<CHANGES>                         0            
<NET-INCOME>                      (46)           
<EPS-PRIMARY>                     0            
<EPS-DILUTED>                     0           
<FN>                    
<F1>                    The Company's balance sheet is unclassified.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-6721

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

KENDESIA JUINIZE MAY, a/k/a Red, a/k/a Reds,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:19-cr-00007-LMB-1)

Submitted: September 14, 2021 Decided: September 20, 2021

Before THACKER and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kendesia Juinize May, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Kendesia Juinize May appeals the district court’s order denying his renewed motion 

for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by the First 

Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 603(b)(1), 132 Stat. 5194, 5239. After reviewing 

the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying May’s 

renewed motion. See United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir. 2021) (per 

curiam) (stating standard). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED
STATE of North Carolina v. Corey Tyrone SNEED-EL.

No. 601P03-4.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 3, 2007.

Corey T. Sneed-El, Pro Se.

William P. Hart, Special Deputy Attorney General, Ben David, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*769*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 5th day of February 2007 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, New Hanover County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 3rd day of May 2007."
STATE v. Timmy SPEIGHT.

No. 491PA04-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 3, 2007.

Patricia A. Duffy, Assistant Attorney General, Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, Clark Everett, District Attorney, for State of NC.

Margaret Creasy Ciardella, Hampstead, for Speight.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 3rd day of January 2007 by Defendant to Stay Issuance of Mandate and to Withdraw the Court's Slip Opinion:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference this the 3rd day of January 2007."
<PAGE>

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 Marketing WorldWide, Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael
Winzkowski, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my
knowledge 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

                                                   /s/ Michael Winzkowski
                                                   -----------------------
                                                   Michael Winzkowski
                                                   Chief Executive Officer
                                                   August 16, 2007
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Valentin Avanesov, Physician PC, a/a/o Valentina Kaganova, Plaintiff-Appellant,<br><br>against<br><br>Travelers Property Casualty Company of America, Defendant-Respondent.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Gerald Lebovits, J.), entered April 15, 2015, which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Order (Gerald Lebovits, J.), entered April 15, 2015, modified to deny defendant's motion for summary judgment and to reinstate the complaint; as modified, order affirmed, with $10 costs.</p><p>Defendant-insurer moved for summary judgment dismissing this first-party no-fault action on the ground that its insured was not involved in the underlying motor vehicle accident in which plaintiff's assignor was allegedly injured. Although defendant submitted a perfunctory affidavit of the insured, containing a conclusory allegation that he was "not involved in a motor vehicle accident involving a pedestrian" on the date at issue, defendant also submitted the insured's detailed unsworn statement indicating that the insured was present at the scene and making a left turn with his vehicle, when "the next thing [he] kn[e]w, the person was on the floor" in front of his vehicle. In addition, the EUO testimony of the assignor indicated that on the date, time and location at issue, she was struck by a vehicle while crossing an intersection.</p><p>All of the evidence submitted on a motion for summary judgment is construed in the light most favorable to the opponent of the motion (<i>see Branham v Loews Orpheum Cinemas</i>, Inc., 8 NY3d 931 [2007]). Further, in opposition to such motion for summary judgment, a court can consider hearsay evidence, as long as it does not become the sole basis for the court's determination (<a href="../2004/2004_03680.htm" target="_blank"><i>see Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig.</i>, 7 AD3d 285</a>, 285 [2004]). Applying these principles, the record evidence including the insured's unsworn statement submitted by defendant (<a href="../2012/2012_03546.htm" target="_blank"><i>see People v Greenberg</i>, 95 AD3d 474</a>, 483-484 [2012], <i>affd</i> 21 NY3d 439 [2013]), raises triable issues as to whether the insured was involved in the subject accident.</p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur I concur<p>Decision Date: May 25, 2017</p><br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 15

- 00297

- CV

Hetul BHAKTA DBA Budget Inn,

Appellant

v.

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

, Appellee

From the 79th Judicial District Court, Brooks County, Texas

Trial Court No. 11

- 04

- 15888

- CV

Honorable Richard C. Terrell, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE BARNARD

, JUSTICE MARTINEZ , AND JUSTICE PULLIAM

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is

AFFIRMED. Costs of appeal are taxed agai nst Hetul Bhakta. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 43.4.

SIGNED April 20, 2016.

_____________________________ Jason Pulliam, Justice
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

VICTOR MANUEL MORALES-ABREGO, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 20-72564 

Agency No. A208-902-363 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 14, 2023**

Before: SILVERMAN, SUNG, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.

Victor Manuel Morales-Abrego, a native and citizen of El Salvador, 

petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order 

dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his 

applications for asylum and withholding of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

MAR 17 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 20-72564 

by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual 

findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We grant 

in part and dismiss in part the petition for review, and we remand.

The BIA denied asylum and withholding of removal on the basis that 

Morales-Abrego failed to establish a nexus to his particular social group “sibling of 

Luis Morales.” Substantial evidence does not support that determination. See 

Parada v. Sessions, 902 F.3d 901, 910-11 (9th Cir. 2018) (evidence that applicant 

was persecuted in retaliation for his brother’s conduct established nexus to family 

as a protected ground); Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 741 (9th Cir. 

2009) (an asylum applicant establishes that a protected ground was “one central 

reason” for persecution where the persecutor would not have harmed the applicant 

absent that motive); see also Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 359-60 (9th 

Cir. 2017) (the less demanding “a reason” standard applies to withholding of 

removal claims).

To the extent Morales-Abrego raises a new particular social group in his 

opening brief, we lack jurisdiction to consider the group because he failed to raise 

it before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) 

(court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency). 

Thus, we grant the petition for review in part and remand Morales-Abrego’s 

asylum and withholding of removal claims to the agency for any necessary further 
3 20-72564 

proceedings consistent with this disposition. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-

18 (2002) (per curiam).

The stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.

The government shall bear the costs for this petition for review. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED in part; DISMISSED in part; 

REMANDED.
Exhibit
31.1
  CERTIFICATION
  
 I,
Jeffrey A. Snider, certify that:
  1.
    I
      have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of PAULA
      Financial;
  2.
    Based
      on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
      material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
      statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
      were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
      report;
  3.
    Based
      on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
      included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
      financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small
      business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this
      report;
  4.
    The
      small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for
      establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
      defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15e and 15d-15e) for the small business
      issuer and have:
  a)  Designed
such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;
  b)  Evaluated
the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and
  c)  Disclosed
in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent
fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of
an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the small business issuer’s internal control over financial
reporting; and
  5.
    The
      small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed,
      based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
      reporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee
      of the small business issuer’s board of directors (or persons performing
      the equivalent functions):
  a)  All
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the small business issuer’s ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and
  b)  Any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over
financial reporting.
 
 Date: November
14, 2005  By: /s/
Jeffrey A. Snider
 Chief Executive
Officer
  17
* 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. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-60150

T. L. CASHAW, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

TRACY VANCE and JOHN PAGE, Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi

(2:92-CV-46)

April 10, 1998

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, REYNALDO G. GARZA and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Plaintiffs appeal an adverse partial summary judgment and judgment on an adverse

jury verdict in their action against the City of Charleston, its Police Chief, and police

officers Tracy Vance and John Page. Having considered the briefs and oral arguments

of counsel and pertinent parts of the record, and finding no reversible error, the judgments

appealed are AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000



<S>                           <C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>                 3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                Jul-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                  Sep-30-1999
<CASH>                        10
<SECURITIES>                  29,807,802
<RECEIVABLES>                 0
<ALLOWANCES>                  0
<INVENTORY>                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              0 <F1>
<PP&E>                        0
<DEPRECIATION>                0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         0 <F1>
<BONDS>                       2,781,735
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         0
<PREFERRED>                   0
<COMMON>                      10
<OTHER-SE>                    164,603
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  0
<SALES>                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              103,540
<CGS>                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              297
<LOSS-PROVISION>              5,100
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            89,266
<INCOME-PRETAX>               8,877
<INCOME-TAX>                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           8,877
<DISCONTINUED>                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>               0
<CHANGES>                     0
<NET-INCOME>                  8,877
<EPS-BASIC>                 0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                 0.00
<FN>
 F1  The Company's balance sheet is unclassified.
</FN>




</TABLE>
TERESA SMITH GILREATH v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCES.

No. 310A06

Supreme Court of North Carolina

August 17, 2006

**ORDER**

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 19th day of June 2006 by Plaintiff in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th day of August 2006.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

STATEMENT UNDER OATH OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL
OFFICER REGARDING FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES RELATING TO EXCHANGE ACT FILINGS

I, Martin E. Hanaka, state and attest that:

(1)  To the best of my knowledge, based upon a review of the covered reports of
     The Sports Authority, Inc., and, except as corrected or supplemented in a
     subsequent covered report:

       .  no covered report contained an untrue statement of a material fact as
          of the end of the period covered by such report (or in the case of a
          report on Form 8-K or definitive proxy materials, as of the date on
          which it was filed); and

       .  no covered report omitted to state a material fact necessary to make
          the statements in the covered report, in light of the circumstances
          under which they were made, not misleading as of the end of the period
          covered by such report (or in the case of a report on Form 8-K or
          definitive proxy materials, as of the date on which it was filed).

(2)  I have reviewed the contents of this statement with the Company's audit
     committee.

(3)  In this statement under oath, each of the following, if filed on or before
     the date of this statement, is a "covered report";

       .  The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended February 2,
          2002 of The Sports Authority, Inc.

       .  all reports on Form 10-Q all reports on Form 8-K and all definitive
          proxy materials of The Sports Authority, Inc. filed with the
          Commission subsequent to the filing of the Form 10-K identified above;
          and

       .  any amendments to the foregoing.

/s/ Martin E. Hanaka                             Subscribed and sworn to
-----------------------------                    before me this 12th day of
Martin E. Hanaka                                 September, 2002.
Date: September 12th, 2002
      -----------------------

                                                 /s/ Patricia B. Rudnick
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                 Notary Public

                                                 My Commission Expires:

                                                 September 22, 2003
                                                 -------------------------------
# The Student Fees (Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2013 (revoked)

        - Previous
        - Next

N.I.

Statutory Rules of Northern Ireland

# 2013 No. 120

Education

# The Student Fees (Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2013 (revoked)F1

Made

30th April 2013

Coming into operation

1st September 2014

F1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                        

F1Regulations revoked (1.9.2015) by The Student Fees (Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2014 (S.R. 2014/116), regs. 1, **5**
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-10387

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ARTHUR J. MUHAMMAD, also known as Arthur James Jordan

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:04-CR-98-ALL

Before WIENER, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Arthur J. Muhammad appeals the sentences imposed by the district court

on remand. Muhammad argues on appeal that his plea was involuntary and

that the district court erred in calculating the amount of loss. Because

Muhammad could have raised these issues in his first appeal but he failed to do

so, he has waived it. See United States v. Castillo, 179 F.3d 321, 326 (5th Cir.

1999), rev'd on other grounds, 530 U.S. 120 (2000).

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

March 14, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-10387

2

The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and its

alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED. The

district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
C. WAYNE McDONALD CONTRACTOR, INC. v. GENDELMAN.

No. COA06-1352.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed July 3, 2007.

Certification Date July 23, 2007.

Appeal from the Davidson (02CVS3158).

Case reported without published opinion. Dismissed.
**Exhibit 32**

**CERTIFICATIONSPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

The certifications set forth below are being submittedin connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscalquarter ended June 30, 2007 (the “Report”) for the purpose of complyingwith Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Section 1350 ofChapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

Richard W.Dreiling, the Chief Executive Officer and John K. Henry, the Chief FinancialOfficer of Duane Reade Holdings, Inc., each certifies that:

1.                the Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) ofthe Exchange Act; and

2.                theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of Duane Reade Holdings, Inc.
|                            |     | /s/ RICHARD W.  DREILING  |
|----------------------------|----------|---------------------------|
|                       |     | Richard W. Dreiling       |
|                       | * * | *Chief Executive Officer* |
|                       |     | /s/ JOHN K. HENRY         |
|                       |     | John K. Henry             |
| Date: August 14, 2007 | * * | *Chief Financial Officer* |

 

----