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

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
unaudited September 30, 1999 financial statements of Community Bancorp, Inc. and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                        19745744
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                              10776623
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                   35898240
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                        88741299
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                          87403279
<LOANS>                                      160677754
<ALLOWANCE>                                    3057975
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               322764119
<DEPOSITS>                                   277355376
<SHORT-TERM>                                  15853260
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            1761032
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       7998045
<OTHER-SE>                                    19796406
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               322764119
<INTEREST-LOAN>                               10207944
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              5158921
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                528686
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                              15895551
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             4986964
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             5669418
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                         10226133
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                7993878
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                4602468
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     4602468
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   2959536
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.00
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.94
<LOANS-NON>                                     544189
<LOANS-PAST>                                      4492
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               2981012
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    80758
<RECOVERIES>                                    157721
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              3057975
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           1606300
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        1451675


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                      14,043,077
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         107,552
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             3,000,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                66,142
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 36,601,566
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      18,130,400
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        17,975,731
<LOANS>                                    163,820,644
<ALLOWANCE>                                  2,180,852
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             246,386,714
<DEPOSITS>                                 222,045,382
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          2,281,901
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     4,188,245
<OTHER-SE>                                  17,871,186
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             246,386,714
<INTEREST-LOAN>                             10,038,890
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            2,325,338
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               427,734
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            12,791,962
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           4,263,016
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,699
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        8,526,247
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              7,332,789
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,221,024
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   3,221,024
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,238,318
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.17
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.59
<LOANS-NON>                                    430,058
<LOANS-PAST>                                     7,804
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             2,132,386
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   61,658
<RECOVERIES>                                   110,124
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            2,180,852
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         1,676,662
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        504,190
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

In the interest of K.B.H, a child, * From the 70th District

 Court of Ector County,

 Trial Court No. A-128,986.

No. 11-11-00233-CV * May 23, 2013

* Memorandum Opinion by Wright, C.J.

 (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

 McCall, J., and Willson, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no 

error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court=s opinion, the 

judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed. The costs incurred by reason of this 

appeal are taxed against Tadd C. Sprayberry.
Item 1. N/A

Item 2.        Disposition of Assets

On August 16, 2001, REII Incorporated (the "Company") disposed of One (1)
residential building lot held for investment purposes.
Naples Inc.

        The total selling price of the one residential building lot
        is follows:

        1920 48th Street SW. Golden Gate FL 34116     $ 23,500.00

                                                       ----------
        Gross Sales prices                            $ 23,500.00


       Cost of Sales Action                           $  1,548.07.
                                                       ----------
       Net Income from Sale                           $ 21,951.93

       The Historical value of this property as carried on the company's
 books was $ 8000.00 thereby showing a net profit on this transaction of
 $13,951.93
 The income from this sale will be used to reduce company debt.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22 - 0325 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. JOSHUA RICHARD LARSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including January 30, 202 3 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 23 2022

12/23/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0325
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

TIMOTHY JOHNSON,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D20-792 

[July 30, 2020]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Bernard I. Bober, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 09-17837CF10B.

Timothy Johnson, Malone, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Melynda L. Melear, 

Senior Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

LEVINE, C.J., GROSS and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur. 

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Order entered December 30, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-20-01056-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF C.C. AND F.C., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 354th Judicial District Court

Hunt County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 87760

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s December 28, 2020 motion for an extension 

of time to file his brief on the merits. We GRANT the motion and extend the time 

to January 18, 2021. We caution appellant that further extension requests in this 

accelerated appeal involving the termination of appellant’s parental rights will be 

disfavored.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 8, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-41589

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DAVID JUAREZ-PEREZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:05-CR-836-ALL

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

Before REAVLEY, GARZA and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

David Juarez-Perez (Juarez) appeals his conviction for

possession with intent to distribute marijuana. Juarez appeals

the denial of his motion to suppress, arguing that the district

court failed to apply the correct legal standard by virtue of its

failure to make the findings necessary to deny the motion, i.e.,

that Juarez initiated further contact with the agents and that he

knowingly and voluntarily waived the right to counsel.

Once an accused has invoked his right to counsel, his

responses to further police questioning are admissible only after
No. 05-41589

-2-

a finding that he “‘(a) initiated further discussions with the

police, and (b) knowingly and intelligently waived the right he

had invoked.’” United States v. Cruz, 22 F.3d 96, 98 n.6 (5th

Cir. 1994) (quoting Smith v. Illinois, 469 U.S. 91, 95 (1984)). 

The district court did not explicitly rule whether Juarez or the

DEA agents initiated discussion of his case; nevertheless, we

will assume that the district court impliedly found that Juarez

initiated the conversation because such finding is essential to

the constitutional inquiry and, additionally, is supported by

Agent Melvin Sinoben’s testimony and the waiver form. See Reich

v. Lancaster, 55 F.3d 1034, 1057 (5th Cir. 1995). To the extent

that Juarez’s testimony conflicted with that of Sinoben on this

issue, we assume that the district court accepted the

Government’s version of events as more credible. See United

States v. Santiago, 410 F.3d 193, 198 (5th Cir. 2005), cert.

denied, 126 S. Ct. 1565 (2006).

Our review of the record indicates that Juarez did not raise

the issue whether he voluntarily waived his right to counsel in

the district court. That issue is therefore waived. See United

States v. Pope, 467 F.3d 912, 920 (5th Cir. 2006). 

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                     <C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>       YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                            DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                        1,693
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     4
<ALLOWANCES>                                      0
<INVENTORY>                                      60
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              1,864
<PP&E>                                          165
<DEPRECIATION>                                   62
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                2,271
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           154
<BONDS>                                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<COMMON>                                         53
<OTHER-SE>                                   11,253
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  2,271
<SALES>                                          10
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 10
<CGS>                                             4
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 4,033
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   0
<INCOME-TAX>                                      0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (3,848)
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                (3,848)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                (1.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                (1.02)
        


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 4 (Thursday, January 7, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 1009]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-117]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities 
and Exchange Commission will hold an Open Meeting on January 11, 2010 
at 9:30 a.m., in the Auditorium, Room L-002, to hear oral argument in 
an appeal by Diane M. Keefe (``Keefe''), a former employee of Pax World 
Management Corp. (``Pax Management''), a registered investment adviser, 
from the decision of an administrative law judge. The law judge found 
that Keefe, a portfolio manager of the Pax World High Yield Fund 
(``Fund''), an investment company registered with the Commission and 
advised by Pax Management, willfully violated Section 34(b) of the 
Investment Company Act of 1940. The law judge suspended Keefe for 
twelve months from association with an investment adviser, broker, or 
dealer.
    Among the issues likely to be argued are whether Keefe willfully 
violated Investment Company Act Section 34(b) and, if so, whether and 
to what extent sanctions should be imposed on her.
    Commissioner Paredes, as duty officer, determined that no earlier 
notice thereof was possible.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in 
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have 
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

    Dated: January 5, 2010.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. 2010-117 Filed 1-5-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
EXHIBIT 31.2



CERTIFICATION



I, Jasmine Gregory, certify that:



(1) I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Premier Holding Corp.;



(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;



(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 quarter (the Registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



(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 the 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:  August 13, 2010



/s/   Jasmine Gregory

Jasmine Gregory

Chief Financial Officer, and Director
#### Frank T. Dearing, Respondent, *v.*The Independent Union Telephone Company, Appellant.

Fourth Department

May 3, 1911.

Practice — trial by court — decision — appeal — failure to file exceptions —motion for new trial.. •

"Where at the close of a trial the j ury was discharged by .consent of both parties and the- issues submitted to the trial justice, who thereafter made his decision in writing in plaintiff’s favor, with the necessary findings, the defendant, who failed to file any exceptions as required by section 994 of the Code of Civil Procedure, cannot on appeal raise the point that upon the undisputed facts and findings the decision should have been in its favor. '

Nor does the fact that.a motion by defendant for a new trial was made and entertained upon the minutes under section 999 of the Code of Civil Procedure aid it, for that section applies only to trials by jury and not to trials by the court.

Appeal by the defendant, The Independent Union Telephone Company, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered.in the office of the clerk of the' county of *153Brie on the 13th day of June, 1910,- upon the decision of the court rendered after a trial at the Erie Trial Term, the jury having been discharged, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the same day denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.

*Corden T. Hackett,*for the appellant.

*Robert W.*Harrington, for the respondent.

Kruse, J.:

The judgment from which the defendant appeals is for two penalties of $100 each, recovered under the provisions of section 103 of the Transportation Corporations Law (Gen. Laws, chap. 40; Laws of 1890, chap. 566; Consol. Laws, chap. 63; Laws of 1909, chap. 219), for refusing to transmit telephone messages.

The defendant contends that upon the. undisputed facts and findings contained in the decision, the defendant is not liable foi°the forfeiture imposed by the statute. Whether that is so or not, Í think the defendant is not in a position 'to raise that question.

Motions for a nonsuit and the direction of a verdict in its favor were made on behalf of the defendant, hut Were not ruled on by the trial court, as both parties consented that the jury be discharged, and the case was submitted for decision to the judge, who thereafter made his decision in writing, making findings as required by the Code of Civil Procedure (§§ 1010, 1022); but no exceptions thereto were filed so far as the. record discloses. Under such circumstances I think the question cannot be reviewed here on this appeal. (Code Civ. Proc. § 994; *Frederick*v. *City of Johnstown, 47*App. Div. 221.)

While a motion for a new trial wks made and entertained on the judge’s minutes, under’section 999 of the Code of Civil Procedure, that does not aid the defendant, as that section applies only to a trial by jury, and this was a trial by the court. *(Waydell*v. *Adams,*23 App. Div. 508.)

The judgment and order must,- therefore, be affirmed, with costs. ■ •

All concurred.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
#### Lydia Slater *v.*J. R. Slater

(CC 576)

Submitted April 27, 1937.

Decided May 18, 1937.

*John T. Copenhaver*and L. *Steele Trotter,*for plaintiff.

*Claude L. Smith,*for defendant.

Kenna, President:

Lydia Slater sued her husband, J. R. Slater, for divorce in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County. A,demurrer was interposed to her amended and supplemental bill, and upon overruling the demurrer the trial court certified, upon the joint application of the parties, the following matters of law to this court:

(1) The averment in the amended and supplemental bill of complaint that the plaintiff and the defendant are first cousins, precludes the plaintiff from instituting an action for divorce.

(2) The only relief available to the plaintiff is the institution of a suit to annul said marriage.

*646(3) The court is without jurisdiction to grant a divorce and no alimony, counsel fee or suit money can be decreed against the defendant.

The order entered on December 7, 1936, recites a previous order entered on the 22nd day of May, 1936, awarding to the plaintiff and against the defendant fifty dollars attorney’s fees and support money of thirty dollars per month. The order of December 7, 1936, expressly provides that the defendant be bound by the terms and conditions of the order of the 22nd day of May, 1936. It will thus be seen that there was involved in the latter order the payment of something over two hundred fifty dollars, and that it was an order for the payment of money. This court has already held that a decree for alimony *pendente lite*is a decree for the payment of money and that if the money involved equals the jurisdictional amount for an appeal to this court, the decree is appealable. *Blackshere*v. *Blackshere,*111 W. Va. 213, 161 S. E. 27. The decree being appealable, the matters of law arising upon it are not certifiable. *Staud*v. *Sill,*114 W. Va. 208, 171 S. E. 428. On the basis of the foregoing observations, it will be seen that this certification was improvidently docketed. The trial court not only overruled the demurrer to the plaintiff’s amended and supplemental bill, but went further and, upon the basis of that bill of complaint, ordered that the defendant pay money to the plaintiff in an amount greater than the jurisdictional amount for appeals to this court. The trial court having acted upon the amended and supplemental bill of complaint after having overruled the demurrer thereto and having by his action rendered his decree appealable, this certification must be dismissed.

*Dismissed.*