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

<ARTICLE>   9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM AUDITED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DATED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         1428754
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         3793704
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    7532540
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          473104
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            473000
<LOANS>                                       28185279
<ALLOWANCE>                                      77000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                42560700
<DEPOSITS>                                    32627632
<SHORT-TERM>                                    273951
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             460613
<LONG-TERM>                                    3699985
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          3317
<OTHER-SE>                                     5495202
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                42560700
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                2404113
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               501502
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                308865
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               3214480
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             1514716
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             1756070
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          1458410
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   409770
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                1298106
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (108076)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                    (136076)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (136076)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.46)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.46)
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                     .09
<LOANS-NON>                                     149000
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  56000
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 77039
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   409809
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                77000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             22328
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          54672
STATE v. Calvin Renard CARTER

193PA16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 7, 2017

Richard J. Costanza, Southern Pines, for Carter, Calvin Renard.

Kristin Jo Uicker, Assistant Attorney General, James R. O'Neill, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 6th of March 2017 by Defendant:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 7th of March 2017."

Defendant shall have up to and including the 26th day of April 2017 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 2, 2014

No. 04-14-00819-CR

IN RE Christopher S. ORTIZ

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

ORDER

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

On November 25, 2014, relator filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus. The court 

has considered relator’s petition and determined that we do not have jurisdiction to consider the 

requested relief. The petition is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. The court’s 

opinion will issue at a later date.

It is so ORDERED on December 2nd, 2014.

_____________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 2nd day of December, 2014.

_____________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2009CR11043, styled The State of Texas v. Christopher S. Ortiz, pending 

in the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Philip A. Kazen Jr. presiding.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

May 21, 2012 

h0514 

Order 

 

May 21, 2012 

144251 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 144251 

 COA: 299787 

 Saginaw CC: 10-034039-FH 

MICHAEL LEE WILSON, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

____________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 15, 2011 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
<PAGE>



                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                   PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

    I, Tamer Husseini, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual
Report of Celeritek, Inc. on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2003
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report fairly
presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
operations of Celeritek, Inc.

By:    /s/  TAMER HUSSEINI
   -------------------------
Name:   Tamer Husseini
      ----------------------
Title:   Chief Executive Officer

    I, Margaret Smith, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual
Report of Celeritek, Inc. on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2003
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report fairly
presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
operations of Celeritek, Inc.

By:   /s/  MARGARET E. SMITH
   ---------------------------
Name:   Margaret E. Smith
     -------------------------
    Title:   Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         290,585
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         824,497
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  5,083,268
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         367,866
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           373,706
<LOANS>                                     22,605,870
<ALLOWANCE>                                  (124,624)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              29,810,078
<DEPOSITS>                                  20,149,937
<SHORT-TERM>                                 5,615,992
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          5,869,655
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,699
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,787,787
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              29,810,078
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              1,560,363
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              416,343
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                58,095
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             2,034,801
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             876,194
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,066,057
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          968,744
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   13,500
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               9,892
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                751,485
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                302,191
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   207,052
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .88
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .80
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                     7.7
<LOANS-NON>                                     50,395
<LOANS-PAST>                                   116,440
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               115,564
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    4,440
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              124,624
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           124,624
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        






</TABLE>
Tammy Lowery and Megail Lowery, Petitioners, v. B.R. and Unknown Father of I.D.R, Respondent.

No. COA16-218

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: October 4, 2016

AFFIRMED.
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).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HERMILO MORENO-LICONAR,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 10-72968

Agency No. A095-745-249

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted August 8, 2012** 

Before: ALARCÓN, BERZON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges. 

Hermilo Moreno-Liconar, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal

from an immigration judge’s order denying his motion to reopen removal

proceedings conducted in absentia. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.

FILED

AUG 15 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-72968

§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Reyes

v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 592, 595 (9th Cir. 2004). We deny in part and dismiss in part

the petition for review. 

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Moreno-Liconar’s motion

to reopen for failure to comply with the requirements set forth in Matter of Lozada,

19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), where the ineffective assistance was not plain on

the face of the record. See Reyes, 358 F.3d at 597-99.

We lack jurisdiction to review Moreno-Liconar’s contention regarding the

transcript from his removal hearing because he failed to raise that issue before the

BIA and thereby failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. See Barron v.

Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (this court lacks jurisdiction to review

contentions not raised before the agency).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
# C_2011340EN.01002002.xml

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/20

---

Order of the General Court of 21 September 2011 — Internationaler Hilfsfonds v Commission

(Case T-141/05 RENV) (1)

1

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to contract LIEN 97/2011 - Refusal of access - Fresh examination in the course of proceedings - Bringing of a separate action - Disappearance of the interest in bringing proceedings - No need to adjudicate)

2011/C 340/41

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Internationaler Hilfsfonds e.V. (Rosbach, Germany) (represented by: H. Kaltenecker, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Costa de Oliveira and T. Scharf, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Annulment of the decision of the Commission of 14 February 2005, refusing Internationaler Hilfsfonds full access to the file relating to the contract ‘LIEN 97-2011’

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the form of order sought by Internationaler Hilfsfonds e.V. seeking annulment of the decision of the European Commission of 14 February 2005 refusing its request for access to the file relating to the contract LIEN 97-2011. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the form of order sought by Internationaler Hilfsfonds e.V. seeking annulment of the decision of the European Commission of 14 February 2005 refusing its request for access to the file relating to the contract LIEN 97-2011.

| 2. | Internationaler Hilfsfonds shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Internationaler Hilfsfonds shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 143, 11.6.2005.

1

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-1400

ESTATE OF WENDELL HESTER, Stephen P. Bishop, Executor,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Samuel G. Wilson, District

Judge. (5:06-cv-00041-sgw-jgw)

Submitted: September 29, 2008 Decided: October 21, 2008

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Aubrey J. Owen, OWEN & TRUBAN, PLC, Winchester, Virginia, for

Appellant. John L. Brownlee, United States Attorney, Nathan J.

Hochman, Assistant Attorney General, Richard Farber, Arthur T.

Catterall, Tax Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
 2 

PER CURIAM:

The estate of Wendell Hester appeals the district court’s

order granting summary judgment in favor of the United States on a

tax refund suit, 26 U.S.C. § 7422 (2000). At issue is whether the

assets that were improperly transferred to the decedent’s

investment account were includible in his gross estate. We have

reviewed the record included on appeal as well as the parties’

briefs, and have found no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm

for the reasons stated by the district court. Estate of Wendell

Hester v. United States, No. 5:06-cv-00041-sgw-jgw (W.D. Va.

March 2, 2007). We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# C_2009102EN.01000701.xml

| 1.5.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 102/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.5.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 102/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 March 2009 — French Republic v Council of the European Union

(Case C-479/07) (1)

1

(Action for annulment - Regulation (EC) No 809/2007 - Definition of the concept of drift nets - ‘Thonaille’ - Duty to state reasons - Infringement of the principles of proportionality and non-discrimination)

2009/C 102/09

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: French Republic (represented by: E. Belliard, G. de Bergues and A.-L. During, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. De Gregorio Merino, M.-M. Joséphidès and E. Chaboureau, Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Nolin, M. van Heezik and M.T. van Rijn, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action for annulment — Annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 809/2007 of 28 June 2007 amending Regulations (EC) No 894/97, (EC) No 812/2004 and (EC) No 2187/2005 as concerns drift nets (OJ 2007 L 182, p. 1) — Concept of ‘drift nets’ — Inclusion in that concept of stabilised nets such as the ‘thonaille’ — Infringement of the duty to provide reasons and of the principles of proportionality and non-discrimination

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

dismisses the action;

dismisses the action;

| 2. | orders the French Republic to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders the French Republic to pay the costs;

| 3. | orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear its own costs.

orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear its own costs

---

(1)  OJ C 297,8.12.2007.

1

---
State v. Richard Jackson Hall

382P15-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 18, 2016

Mr. Richard Jackson Hall, for Hall, Richard Jackson.

*516Mr. Joseph L. Hyde, Assistant Attorney General, Mr. Garry W. Frank, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 30th of June 2016 by Defendant for Petition for Rehearing of Denial of Petition for Writ of Certiorari:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th of August 2016."
* 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. 00-60778

Summary Calendar

 

MYRON BASS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

COMMUNITY HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC.; PARKWOOD HOSPITAL;

VICTORIA SHEETS,

Defendants-Appellees.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 2:00-CV-193

--------------------

August 22, 2001

Before JOLLY, DAVIS and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Because Myron Bass's prior civil action did not conclude

with a final judgment on the merits as to Bass's state-law

claims, see Bass v. Parkwood Hospital, 180 F.3d 234, 245-47 (5th

Cir. 1999); Bass v. Parkwood Hospital, No. 2:96CV119-B-B (N.D.

Miss. Aug. 24, 1999) (unpublished), the district court abused its

discretion in determining that the state-law claims raised in the

instant complaint are res judicata. See Ellis v. Amex Life Ins.

Co., 211 F.3d 935, 936 (5th Cir. 2000). 
No. 00-60778

-2-

Bass has invoked the district court's diversity

jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). The district court

has not yet determined whether it has diversity jurisdiction over

Bass's state-law claims. Although we doubt whether Bass's claim

for damages in excess of the $75,000 jurisdictional amount has

been asserted in good faith, see St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v.

Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 289 (1938), the record is not

developed sufficiently to permit this court to affirm the

dismissal of Bass's complaint on that basis. See Burns v.

Anderson, 502 F.2d 970, 971 (5th Cir. 1974). 

For the foregoing reasons, the district court's orders

dismissing Bass's state-law claims as res judicata and denying

Bass's motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) are VACATED and the

case is REMANDED for further proceedings.

VACATED AND REMANDED.
# C_2011319EN.01002702.xml

| 29.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/27

---

Order of the General Court of 6 September 2011 — BP Aromatics v Commission

(Case T-429/07) (1)

1

2011/C 319/56

Language of the case: English

The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 37, 9.2.2008.

1

---
State v. Barry Randall Revels

14A17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 25, 2017

Amanda S. Zimmer, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Revels, Barry Randall.

Keith Clayton, Special Deputy Attorney General, Mike Miller, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 24th of January 2017 to Abate Proceeding Based on Defendant's Death:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 25th of January 2017."
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Nevsun Resources Ltd. (the Company) on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John A. Clarke, the Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



1.

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



/@/ John A. Clarke

John A. Clarke

President and Chief Executive Officer



March 23, 2006
James Russell LYNN, Plaintiff, v. Nancy Elizabeth FUTRELL, Defendant.

No. COA16-743

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: February 21, 2017

VACATED AND REMANDED.
Department of Transportation v. Adams Outdoor Advertising of Charlotte Limited Partnership

No. 206P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 22, 2016

Kenneth A. Sack, Assistant Attorney General, Dahr Joseph Tanoury, Associate City Attorney, for Department of Transportation.

Craig D. Justus, Attorney at Law, Asheville, for Adams Outdoor Advertising of Charlotte Limited Partnership.

John F. Maddrey, Solicitor General.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Defendant on the 24th of May 2016 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30, and the motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question filed by the Plaintiff, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the motion to dismiss the appeal is

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 22nd of September 2016."