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

<ARTICLE>                    5
<LEGEND>                     THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL
                             INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FINANCIAL
                             STATEMENTS OF HEMASURE INC. FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS
                             ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
                             ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                               1,000
<CURRENCY>                          U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                            12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                      JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                        DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                               1
<CASH>                                    5,527
<SECURITIES>                             11,369
<RECEIVABLES>                               283
<ALLOWANCES>                                  0
<INVENTORY>                                 376
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              0
<PP&E>                                    3,666
<DEPRECIATION>                            1,421
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           20,560
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     3,419
<BONDS>                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<COMMON>                                     81
<OTHER-SE>                                7,848
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             20,560
<SALES>                                     779
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            779
<CGS>                                     3,785
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             3,785
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                         14,238
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         (15,850)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     (15,850)
<DISCONTINUED>                          (24,748)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                            (40,598)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                             (5.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0


</TABLE>
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 2- 26 58

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
Mi gu el Ang el Mart in ez-M erl os ; Cr is ti na Mart in ez

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Peti ti on er s

v.

Eric H. Hold er, J r., Att or ne y Gene ral of Un it ed Sta te s

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Resp on de nt

__ __ __ __ __ __
Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of a n Ord er o f th e Bo ard of I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Marc h 2 0, 2 01 3 Fi le d: Apri l 5 , 20 13 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re MUR PHY, SMITH, an d C OLLOTO N, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.

Mi gu el Mar ti ne z-M erl os (Ma rti ne z-M erl os ), a ci ti zen of El Sal va do r, an d hi s wife Ch ris ti na Mar ti ne z (Ma rti ne z), a ci ti zen of Mex ic o , p e t i ti on fo r rev ie w of an

or de r of th e Bo ard of Im

m ig rat io n App eal s (BIA), w h i c h a ffi rm ed an im m ig rat io n jud ge ’s ad ve rs e de ci si on

. Afte r care fu l co ns id erat io n of th e pe ti ti on , we fin d no ba si s fo r rev ers al

.Fi rs t, we co nc lu de th at we la ck juri sd ic ti on to rev i e w t h e BIA’s de ni al of

Mar ti ne z-M erl os ’s ap pl ic at io n fo r can cel la ti on of rem ov al

. See Zacar ia s- Vela sq ue z

v. Mu ka se y , 50 9 F.3 d 42 9, 43 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ) (th is co ur t la ck s juri sd ic ti on to rev ie w de ni al of can cel la ti on of rem ov al fo r fai lu re to pr ov e ex cep ti o n a l a n d ex tre m el y

un us ua l h ard sh ip ); see al so Gom ez-P erez v. Hold er, 569 F.3 d 37 0, 37 2- 73 (8t h C ir.
20 09 ) (juri sd ic ti on al ba r ap pl ie d to pe ti ti on er’s arg um en t th at BIA ha d ap pl ie d “ an in co rrec t le ga l st an da rd by fai li ng to ad eq ua t el y co ns id er cert ai n fact or s,” as
pe ti ti on er was m erel y ch al le ng in g BIA’s di sc ret io na ry co nc lu si on th at ci rcu m st an ces di d no t m erit ca

nc el la ti on of rem ov al ). Seco nd
, we co nc lu de th at su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce

su pp or te d th e BIA’s de ci si on to de ny Mar ti ne z as y lu m an d wit hh ol di ng of rem ov al

. See Kh ry st ot od or ov v. Mu ka se y , 55 1 F.3d 77 5, 78 1, 78 4 (8t h Cir. 20 08 ) (th is co ur t
up ho ld s de ni al of as y lu m if it is su pp or te d by su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce; de ni al of as y lu m di ct at es same ou tc om e o n wi th ho ld in g- of -rem ov al cl ai m ba se d on same un de rlyin g fact ua l al le ga ti on s) ; se e al so Co ns ta nz a v. Hol de r, 64 7 F.3 d 74 9, 75 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (p er cu ria m ) (m em

be rs hi p in pa rti cu la r s o c i a l gr ou p req ui res th at m em be rs ho ld im m ut ab le ch arac te ris ti c, or co m m on tra it su ch as se x, co lo r, ki ns hi p, or sh ared pa st

ex pe rie nc es , an d th at gr ou p ha s su ffi ci en t pa rti cu la rit y an d vi si bi li ty to be pe rcei ve d by soc ie ty as co he si ve gro up ).

Acco rd in gl y , th e p et it io n fo r rev ie w is de ni ed . See 8 th Cir . R. 47 B.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-2

-
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000920106
<NAME> GAME FINANCIAL CORPORATION

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       5,504,161
<SECURITIES>                                 1,131,736
<RECEIVABLES>                                  522,007
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,499,885
<PP&E>                                       3,074,020
<DEPRECIATION>                                 944,317
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,931,118
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,930,434
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        45,206
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,892,478
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,931,118
<SALES>                                     18,951,253
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            18,951,253
<CGS>                                       12,538,546
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               12,538,546
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,773,928
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,638,779
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,045,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,593,779
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,593,779
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .34
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .34



</TABLE>
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 690 

To amend the Small Business Act to authorize the Administrator of the 

Small Business Administration to waive the prohibition on duplication 

of certain disaster relief assistance. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 27, 2007 

Ms. LANDRIEU introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship 

A BILL 

To amend the Small Business Act to authorize the Administrator of the Small Business Administration to waive 

the prohibition on duplication of certain disaster relief 

assistance. 

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 ‘‘Catastrophic Disaster 

5 Recovery Improvements Act of 2007’’. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
2 

•S 690 IS

1 SEC. 2. WAIVER OF PROHIBITION ON DUPLICATION OF 

2 CERTAIN BENEFITS. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 7(b) of the Small Busi4 ness Act (15 U.S.C. 636(b)) is amended by inserting im5 mediately after paragraph (3) the following: 

6 ‘‘(4) WAIVER OF PROHIBITION ON DUPLICATION

7 OF CERTAIN BENEFITS.—For any major disaster (as 

8 that term is defined in section 102 of the Robert T. 

9 Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance 

10 Act (42 U.S.C. 5122)), in providing assistance 

11 under paragraph (1) or (2), the Administrator may 

12 waive, in whole or in part, the prohibition on the du13 plication of benefits, including whether damage or 

14 destruction has been compensated for by, credit is 

15 available from, activities are reimbursable through, 

16 or funds have been made available from any other 

17 source.’’. 

18 (b) APPLICABILITY AND RETROACTIVITY FOR VIC19 TIMS OF HURRICANES KATRINA, RITA, AND WILMA.—The 

20 amendment made by this section shall apply to any assist21 ance under section 7(b) of the Small Business Act (15 

22 U.S.C. 636(b)) provided on or after August 29, 2005. 

Æ 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
State of North Carolina v. Ali Mahamed Sheikh and Abdulkadir Sharif Ali

No. 217P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 18, 2016

Anne M. Gomez, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Sheikh, Ali Mahamed.

Bruce T. Cunningham, Jr., Attorney at Law, Southern Pines, for Ali, Abdulkadir Sharif.

Heather H. Freeman, Assistant Attorney General, Robert M. Curran, Special Deputy Attorney General, J. Douglas Henderson, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 7th of June 2016 by Defendant (AbdulKadir Sharif Ali) 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 18th of August 2016."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 15th of June 2016 by Defendant (AbdulKadir Sharif Ali) to Amend Petition for Discretionary Review:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th of August 2016."
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ISMAEL SANTIAGO AGUIRRE 

SANCHEZ,

 Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 13-71563

Agency No. A091-691-808

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February, 24, 2016**

Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

Ismael Santiago Aguirre-Sanchez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, 

petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his 

appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for 

withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture 

 

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

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 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 4 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 13-71563

(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for 

substantial evidence the agency’s findings of fact. Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 

1012, 1015 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny the petition for review. 

The record does not compel the conclusion that Aguirre-Sanchez established 

that his past harms were committed by a group that the Salvadoran government 

was unable or unwilling to control. See Castro-Perez v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 1069, 

1072 (9th Cir. 2005 (failure to report non-governmental persecution due to belief 

that police would do nothing did not establish that government was unable or 

unwilling to control persecutors based on the record in the case); see also Nahrvani 

v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2005) (record does not compel a 

contrary conclusion where “reasonable minds could differ”). We reject AguirreSanchez’s contention that the agency ignored his testimony in reaching its 

conclusion. In addition, substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that, 

even acknowledging Aguirre-Sanchez’s heightened risk of harm, he failed to 

establish that it is more likely than not that he will be persecuted by gang members 

if returned to El Salvador. See Lanza v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 917, 934-35 (9th Cir. 

2004); see also Fakhry v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1057, 1066 (9th Cir. 2008) (evidence 

did not compel a finding that it was more likely than not petitioner would be 
3 13-71563

persecuted). Thus, we deny the petition as to Aguirre-Sanchez’s withholding of 

removal claim. 

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Aguirre-Sanchez’s 

CAT claim because he failed to establish that it is more likely than not that he 

would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if 

returned to El Salvador. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 

2008).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Tyrone Aiken, Petitioner, v. State of South Carolina, Respondent.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

July 28, 2016

*582ORDER

Petitioner filed a motion on June 29, 2016 for resentencing pursuant to Aiken v. Byars , 410 S.C. 534, 765 S.E.2d 572 (S.C. 2014). Now, therefore, pursuant to SC CONST. Art. V, § 4,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Honorable Maite Murphy be vested with exclusive jurisdiction over the Petitioner's Motion for Resentencing in the above-captioned matter.

Judge Murphy shall at all times be vested with concurrent jurisdiction in all circuits of the state to dispose of matters relating to this case, and shall decide all matters pertaining to the Petitioner's Motion, and shall retain jurisdiction over this matter regardless of where she may be assigned to hold court, and may schedule such hearings as may be necessary at any time without regard as to whether there is a term of court scheduled.

If necessary, to resolve issues related to the appointment of counsel, a hearing shall be conducted within thirty (30) days of this order.

Within sixty (60) days of the date of this order, Judge Murphy shall issue a scheduling order setting forth the schedule that shall be followed in this matter, including the date of the hearing on the merits. The scheduling order may be amended as necessary.

s/Costa M. Pleicones

Costa M. Pleicones

Chief Justice
State of North Carolina v. David Lee Applewhite

No. COA16-335

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: November 15, 2016

NO ERROR IN PART; REMANDED IN PART.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.02


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

         We consent to the incorporation by reference into the Quintiles
Transnational Corp. Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Registration Nos.
33-91026, 333-03603, 333-16553 and 333-40493) and the Registration Statements on
Form S-3 (Registration Nos. 333-19009, 333-28919, 333-38181, 333-40497 and
333-48403) of our report dated May 15, 1996, on our audits of the consolidated
financial statements of BRI International, Inc. as of November 30, 1995 and
1994, and for the years then ended, which report is included as an exhibit in
this Annual Report on Form 10-K.




                                                   /s/ Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.

McLean, Virginia
March 27, 1998
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10
- 18
- 00316
- CV
IN THE MATTER OF M.T .F.
- S.

From the County Court at Law Coryell County, Texas Trial Court No. 18
- 2333

A B A T E M E N T ORDER
On September 21, 2018, the trial court, sitting as a juvenile court, signed an order waiving jurisdiction over this case and transferring Appella nt, a seventeen

- year - old juvenile, to district court. See T EX

. F AM
. C ODE A NN
. § 54.02. Appellant filed a notice of appeal on October 9, 2018. On November 30, 2018, the Clerk of this Court notified Appellant that the $205 filing fee in this cause was pas t due and that the appeal would be dismissed if Appellant did not either establish the right to proceed without payment of costs or pay the filing fee within fourteen days of the date of the letter. No response has been received from Appellant.I n the Matter of M.T.F.

- S. Page 2

On Novemb er 28, 2018, the Clerk of this Court notified Appellant that we have not received the docketing statement and that the docketing statement must be filed within twenty

- one days of the date of the letter. No response has been received from Appellant. Appel lant’s brief was originally due on or before November 14, 2018. When no brief was filed, the Clerk of this Court notified Appellant by letter dated November 28, 2018 that the brief was late and that, unless a brief or satisfactory response was received
wi thin fourteen days, the Court would abate the appeal to the trial court for a hearing to determine why a brief has not been filed on Appellant’s behalf and to assure that Appellant is receiving effective assistance of counsel. No brief or response has bee n received from Appellant. In light of the foregoing, the Court abates this cause to the trial court for a hearing to determine: (1) why the Court has received no response from Appellant; (2) whether Appellant still desires to proceed with this appeal ; ( 3) whether Appellant’s attorney has abandoned the appeal; and (4) whether the appointment of an attorney to represent Appellant in this appeal is necessary. The trial court shall conduct the hearing within 14 days after the date of this O rder. The trial court clerk and court reporter shall file supplemental records within 28 days
after the date of this O rder.

PER CURIAMI n the Matter of M.T.F.

- S. Page 3

Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis , and Justice Scoggins Order issued and filed January 9, 2019
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Christopher C. Duignan, certify that:

|   
|---
|(1)
|   
|(2)
|   
|(3)
|   
|(4)

(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 registrant, 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) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance
  regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant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

(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal that has materially affected, or is
  reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

|   
|---
|(5)

(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 registrant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 registrants internal control over financial reporting.

|                      |  |     |  |                                                                               
|--------------------- |  | --- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: March 16, 2007 |  | By: |  | /s/ CHRISTOPHERC. DUIGNANChristopher C. DuignanInterim Chief Financial Officer



---
Exhibit 31.2

Certifications

I, Edward Escudero, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Petro Financial Corporation;

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 registrant as of, and for, the periods
presented in this report;

4. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls
and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant 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 registrant, 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
registrant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 registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting.

5. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of
registrant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 registrant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 registrants internal control
over financial reporting.

Date: March 30, 2006



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ Edward Escudero                  
|(Edward Escudero)                    
|Chief Financial Officer and Secretary