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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>                                        
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   6-MOS                   
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1997   
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997             JUN-30-1997 
<CASH>                                          104684                  104684 
<SECURITIES>                                    149723                  149723 
<RECEIVABLES>                                    52284                   52284
<ALLOWANCES>                                      1248                    1248
<INVENTORY>                                       6164                    6164
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                263770                  263770
<PP&E>                                           79401                   79401
<DEPRECIATION>                                   51420                   51420
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  354744                  354744
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            94426                   94426
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                         21892                   21892
<OTHER-SE>                                      217872                  217872
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    354744                  354744
<SALES>                                          63628                  118412
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 63628                  118412
<CGS>                                            47451                   89464
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    51250                   96971
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   315                     615
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 110                     196
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  14825                   26108
<INCOME-TAX>                                      5570                    9970
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               9255                   16138
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                      9255                   16138
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.10                    0.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.09                    0.16
        

</TABLE>
#### Apseloff Brothers v. Hyman, et al.

(Decided February 4, 1915.)

Appeal from Campbell Circuit Court.

Mechanics’ *Liens*— Detective Construction — Evidence.—In an action to enforce a mechanics’ lien, evidence examined, and held that the wort for which plaintiffs claimed a lien was not properly done, and they were therefore not entitled to a lien.

HUBBARD SCHWARTZ for appellants.

JAS. C. WRIGHT for appellees.

OPINION OF THE COURT BY

WlLLIAM ROGERS CLAY, COMMISSIONER

Affirming.

This is an action by appellants, Apseloff Brothers, to enforce a mechanic’s lien on certain property belonging to appellee, Lizzie Hyman. The case was referred to the master commissioner to hear evidence and report on the claim. He filed a report rejecting the claim. Exceptions to his report were overruled, and judgment entered approving his finding. From that judgment this appeal is prosecuted.

The facts are these:

Appellee, Lizzie Hyman, contracted with Kuller *&*Golden, general contractors, to build a house on a lot which she owned. Kuller & Golden sublet the brick work to appellants, who, upon completion of the first story, were to be paid the sum of $200, and certain payments thereafter as the work progressed. Appellants completed the first story, and because appellee declined to pay them *542the sum of $200, which, they claimed that she had agreed to pay, refused to go on with the work. Kuller *&*Golden then tore down the work which appellants had constructed, and reconstructed the building in part, when they also abandoned their contract.

Appellants are asking a lien for the work which was torn down. They and their witnesses testify that the first story was built according to contract and in a workmanlike manner. The evidence for appellee is that the construction was faulty and did not come up to the requirements of the specifications. We deem it unnecessary to state the evidence at length. Though the evidence tends to show that the appellee promised to pay appellants the sum of $200, the evidence that the first story was properly constructed is by no means satisfactory. Perhaps the most persuasive evidence concerning the character of the work is the fact that Kuller & Golden, the general contractors, who were responsible for the proper construction of the building, tore down the work which appellants' had constructed, and replaced it at their own expense. Both the .commissioners and the chancellor found that the work for which appellants claim a lien was not properly done, and upon a consideration of all the evidence, we are Unable to say that they erred in their conclusion.

Judgment affirmed.
II

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2153

To suspend temporarily the duty on cobalt boron.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 2, 2000

Mr. HOLLINGS (for himself and Mr. THURMOND) introduced the following bill;

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To suspend temporarily the duty on cobalt boron.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF DUTY.

4 Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tar5 iff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting

6 in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.xx.xx Cobalt boron (provided for

in subheading 8105.10.30) .. Free No change No change On or before

12/31/2004 ’’.

7 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

8 The amendment made by section 1 applies with re9 spect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for
2

•S 2153 IS

1 consumption, on or after the date that is 15 days after

2 the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
Exhibit 32.2CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002In connection with the Annual Report of Columbia Bancorp (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the yearending December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Greg B. Spear, the Chief Financial Officer and Chief Accounting Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and  2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Company for the period certified.Date: March 15, 2007   /s/ GREG B. SPEAR Greg B. Spear
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

YI MA, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 20-72120 

Agency No. A088-271-175 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 17, 2023**

Pasadena, California

Before: TASHIMA, HURWITZ, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

Yi Ma petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals 

(“BIA”) dismissing his appeal from an order of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying 

adjustment of status. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review “any judgment” regarding the denial of an 

* 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

FEB 22 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

application for adjustment of status, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), 1255(j), except to 

the extent a petition for review poses “constitutional claims or questions of law,” id.

§ 1252(a)(2)(D).

Although Ma contends that the IJ violated his constitutional due process rights 

by effectively making a frivolousness finding without complying with certain

procedural requirements, see Fernandes v. Holder, 619 F.3d 1069, 1076 (9th Cir. 

2010), the IJ made no such finding. Instead, she weighed the equities of Ma’s case 

and found that they did not warrant a favorable exercise of discretion because of 

Ma’s connection to a fraud scheme. Ma’s real argument is that this weighing of the 

equities was an abuse of discretion, but we lack jurisdiction to review that claim. 

Torres-Aguilar v. INS, 246 F.3d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[P]etitioner may not 

create the jurisdiction that Congress chose to remove simply by cloaking an abuse 

of discretion argument in constitutional garb.”); Bazua-Cota v. Gonzales, 466 F.3d 

747, 748–49 (9th Cir. 2006) (per curiam). To the extent Ma challenges the IJ’s 

factual finding that he was connected to the fraud scheme, we likewise have no 

jurisdiction. See Patel v. Garland, 142 S. Ct. 1614, 1623–24, 1627 (2022).

PETITION DISMISSED.
#### EMMA AURAN, Appellant, v. MENTOR SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 OF DIVIDE COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA, a Public Corporation. COUNTY OF DIVIDE, NORTH DAKOTA, a Public Corporation, et al., Respondents.

(228 N. W. 435.)

*935Opinion filed December 24, 1929.

*Olaf Braatelien,*for appellant.

*E. J. Mcllraith,*for respondents.

*936Bukke, Ch. J.

This is an appeal from an order vacating and dismissing an execution and a garnishment proceeding in aid thereof.

The plaintiff, Emma Auran, having a judgment against the defendant, Mentor school district No. 1, of Divide county, North Dakota, and the members of the board of education of the said school district, caused an execution to be issued on said judgment, and in aid thereof commenced a garnishment proceeding against the county of Divide, the county auditor, and county treasurer of said county. The garnishees appeared by the state’s attorney, and objected to the jurisdiction of the court on the ground and for the reason that the funds held by the garnishees are pubic funds held as a trust fund, and not subject to execution, attachment or garnishment.

The motion is based upon the affidavit of the state’s attorney, and upon hearing thereon, the trial court duly made its order, vacating, dismissing and discharging the execution and the garnishment proceedings.

It is the contention of the appellant that since money belonging to the school district was on hand in the office of the county treasurer, and the defendant school district did not appear and defend, that it was subject to garnishment for the payment of said judgment.

It is the contention of the respondent that public funds are not subject to execution, attachment or garnishment; that under § 1227, Comp. Laws 1913, a final judgment against a school district can be paid out of a fund raised by the board levying a tax upon the taxable property of the school district, which shall be used in the payment of the judgment. We are of the opinion, that respondent i,s right in his contention. Section 1227, Comp. Laws 1913, must be read in connection with § 1223, Comp. Laws 1913, which provides, “that the notice of tax levy to pay any judgment against the district shall be in addition to the regular tax.”

It is clear from reading the two sections together, that the judgment cannot be paid out of the fund' raised by the regular tax, but must be paid out of a tax levied especially for the payment of the judgment, and it is equally clear, that the purpose of the statute is to prevent interference in any way with the funds provided for public schools.

It was not necessary for the defendants to appear, for the reason *937tbat a garnishee can interpose any defense or objection available to defendants in a garnishment proceeding. Subdivision 4, § 7575, Comp. Laws 1913, relating to garnishment proceedings, states specifically that “He [the garnishee] may state any claim of exemption from execution on the part of the defendant, or other objection known to him against .the right of the plaintiff to apply upon his demands the indebtedness or property disclosed.”

The order of the trial judge is affirmed.

Bibdzell, Nuessle, Bubb, and Cheistianson, JJ., concur.
2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
7-19-2010 

# I n Re: V i s t eon C or p or at ion, et al

. P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 10-1944

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" I n Re: V i s t e on C or por at ion, e t al . " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 830. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/830U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS F O R T H E T H IRD C IR C U IT

_____________ No. 10-1944

_____________ In re: VI STEON CORPORATI ON, ET AL
. IUE -C WA, Ind

us tr ia l D ivi sio n o f C omm un ic atio ns Wor

ke rs of Am e ri c a , A F L -C I O, CL C, Appellant O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

fo r t h e D ist ri ct of

D elaw are N o. 10- cv- 00091 D i s t r i ct J udge: J udge M i chae l M
. B ay l s on ( Speci al l y Pr es i di ng)

Argued: May

28, 2010 Be fore : McKee , Chief Judge , Rendell & Stapleton, Circuit Judges

OR DE R A M EN DI NG

OP IN ION IT I S HEREBYOR

DE RE D that the Slip Opinion fil ed in this case on July 13, 20 10 , b e ame nd e d a s f

oll ow s: On pa g e 2, Sus an M . Jennic k s ho uld be c ha ng e d to Sus an M
. Jenn ik; On pa g e 3, c ha

ng e “ Pa c hu lsk i, S ta

nk Z ie hl &Jone s” to “ Pa c hu lsk i, Stang Z iehl & Jones”; On pag e 3 add Ma

rk M. B illion, Esq t o the list of attorney s from P a c hu l s k i , S t an gZ i e h l & J o n e s , a l s o un d e r th i s l i s to f

att o r n e ys chang e “ Attorneys for AppelleeVisteon Corporati on” , to Attorneys for Defendant-Appe llee Visteon Corporation .; On pag e 3 cha

ng e “ Attorneys AppelleeOfficial Committ ee of Un se c ure d Cre ditor

s”to rea d “Attorneys for Defendant- Appe llee Of fic ial Com mi tte eof U

ns e c ure d Cre ditor

s” ’ and On pag e 13, cha

ng e “V isteon appea led the bankr uptcy court’sdecision” to “ The union appe aled the ba nkruptcy court’s de cision”

BYTHE COURT:

/s/ Chi ef Judge Theodore A. McKe e C i rc u i tJ u d ge Dated: July

19, 2010 tmk/cc: Susan M. J ennik, Esq. Thomas M. Kenne dy , I , Esq. Mark M, B illion, Esq. Andre w B . Bloomer , Esq. Patrick M. B ryan, Esq. L aura

D. J ones, esq. Steven D. McCormick, Esq. J ames E. O’ Neill, I I I , Esq. Wil liam P. Bowden, Esq. Howar d L . Siege l, Esq. Robert J . Stark, Esq. Gre g ory

A. Tay lor, Esq.
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.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [Disaster Declaration # 12161 and # 12162]

# AGENCY:

Small Business Administration.

# ACTION:

Amendment 3.

# SUMMARY:

This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of TENNESSEE (FEMA-1909-DR), dated 05/04/2010 .

*Incident:*                         Severe Storms, Flooding, Straight-Line Winds and Tornadoes.                    

*Incident Period:*                         04/30/2010 and continuing.                    

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         05/06/2010.                    

*Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         07/06/2010.                    

*Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         02/04/2011.                    

# ADDRESSES:

Submit completed loan applications to: Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Wort, TX 76155.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of TENNESSEE, dated 05/04/2010, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster.

*Primary Counties:*                     Dickson, Humphreys, Maury, Rutherford, Benton.                

All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

James E. Rivera,

Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.

[FR Doc. 2010-11411 Filed 5-12-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                                       OF
                            ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                                  ZAPWORLD.COM

The undersigned certify that:

1.     They are the president and the secretary, respectively, of Zapworld.com,
       a California corporation.

2.     Article IV of the Articles of Incorporation of this corporation is
       amended to read as follows:

              "(a) The corporation is authorized to issue two classes of stock
              designated 'Common Stock' and 'Preferred Stock,' respectively. The
              number of shares of Common Stock the corporation is authorized to
              issue is twenty million (20,000,000). The number of shares of
              Preferred Stock the corporation is authorized to issue is ten
              million (10,000,000).

              "(b) The Preferred Stock may be divided into such number of series
              as the board of directors may determine. The board of directors is
              authorized to determine and alter the rights, preferences,
              privileges, and restrictions granted to or imposed upon any wholly
              unissued series of Preferred Stock, and to fix the number of
              shares and the designation of any series of Preferred Stock. The
              board of directors may, within the limits stated in any resolution
              or resolutions of the board of directors originally fixing the
              number of shares constituting any series, increase or decrease
              (but not below the number of shares of such series then
              outstanding) the number of shares of any series subsequent to the
              issue of shares of that series."

3.     The foregoing amendment of Articles of Incorporation has been duly
       approved by the board of directors.

4.     The foregoing amendment of Articles of Incorporation has been duly
       approved by the required vote of shareholders in accordance with Section
       902 of the California Corporations Code. The total number of outstanding
       shares of Common Stock of the corporation is 5,226,594. There are no
       outstanding shares of Preferred Stock. The number of shares of Common
       Stock voting in favor of the amendment exceeded the vote required. The
       percentage vote required was more than 50% of the outstanding shares.

<PAGE>

We further declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of
California that the matters set forth in this certificate are true and correct
of our own knowledge.

Date: June 26, 2000


                                               ---------------------------------
                                               Gary Starr, President

                                               ---------------------------------
                                               Joni Arellanes, Secretary



                                      -2-
EXHIBIT 13.1

CERTIFICATION

The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2004 (the Report) for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

Agustín García Mansilla, the Chief Executive Officer and Gustavo Castelli, the Chief Financial Officer of Quilmes Industrial (Quinsa), Société Anonyme, each
certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:

|1. | the report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and                                                                                   
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                      
|2. | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Quilmes Industrial (Quinsa), Société Anonyme.
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                      

|Date:  |  | November 23, 2005          
|------ |  | ---------------------------
|       |  |                            
|       |  |                            
|       |  | /s/ Agustín García Mansilla
|      
|Name:  |  | Agustín García Mansilla    
|Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer    
|       |  |                            
|       |  |                            
|       |  | /s/ Gustavo Castelli       
|      
|Name:  |  | Gustavo Castelli           
|Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer