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

<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                      10,672,255
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                            12,700,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                               207,600
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 33,195,299
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      17,078,123
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        17,104,941
<LOANS>                                    139,638,047
<ALLOWANCE>                                  1,965,641
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             220,073,227
<DEPOSITS>                                 198,669,348
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          1,865,167
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     4,034,795
<OTHER-SE>                                  15,503,917
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             220,073,227
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              5,818,429
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            1,376,656
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               282,072
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             7,477,157
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           2,644,404
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,604
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        4,820,149
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              4,565,735
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,649,863
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   1,649,863
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,002,963
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .70
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .62
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.47
<LOANS-NON>                                    517,677
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             1,934,541
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    3,182
<RECOVERIES>                                    34,282
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            1,965,641
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         1,699,980
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        265,661


</TABLE>
**Exhibit
      23.2**











**REPORT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**











The
      Board
      of Directors and Stockholders


Mexican
      Restaurants, Inc.:




We
      have
      audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of Mexican Restaurants,
      Inc.
      and subsidiaries as of January 2, 2005, and the related consolidated statements
      of operations, stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the
      two-year period ended January 2, 2005. These consolidated financial statements
      are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to
      express an opinion on these consolidated financial statements based on our
      audits.




We
      conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company
      Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we
      plan
      and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial
      statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining,
      on a
      test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial
      statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used
      and
      significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall
      financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a
      reasonable basis for our opinion.




In
      our
      opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present fairly,
      in all material respects, the financial position of Mexican Restaurants, Inc.
      and subsidiaries as of January 2, 2005, and the results of their operations
      and
      their cash flows for each of the years in the two-year period ended January
      2,
      2005, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting
      principles.














(signed)
      KPMG LLP













Houston,
      Texas


March
      28,
      2005, except for Note 1, as to which the date is March 30, 2006
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                                 160,000
<SECURITIES>                                           562,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                          135,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                                 0
<INVENTORY>                                                  0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                       903,000
<PP&E>                                               2,448,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                         777,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      11,111,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                3,672,000
<BONDS>                                              1,844,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                        0
<PREFERRED>                                                  0
<COMMON>                                                16,000
<OTHER-SE>                                           4,632,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        11,051,000
<SALES>                                                213,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       513,000
<CGS>                                                  143,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        7,435,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       (10,000)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     380,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     (7,435,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                 0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                          0
<DISCONTINUED>                                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                              0
<CHANGES>                                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                                        (7,435,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                               (.53)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                             (.53)


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 21** 
 
 The
following is a list of wholly owned subsidiaries, unless otherwise noted, of
FPIC Insurance Group, Inc. as of December 31, 2004:
   Name
      of Subsidiary
    State
      of IncorporationFirst
      Professionals Insurance Company, Inc. (First
Professionals)
    FloridaAnesthesiologists
      Professional Assurance Company
    FloridaFPIC
      Insurance Agency, Inc.
    FloridaEmployers
      Mutual, Inc. (EMI)
    FloridaFPIC
      Services, Inc.
      (87.5%
      owned by EMI)
    FloridaProfessional
      Strategy Options, Inc.
      (100%
      owned by EMI)
    FloridaAdministrators
      For The Professions, Inc. (AFP)
    New
      YorkGroup
      Data Corporation
      (100%
      owned by AFP)
    New
      YorkFPIC
      Intermediaries, Inc.
      (100%
      owned by AFP)
    New
      YorkPhysicians
      Reciprocal Managers, Inc.
      (100%
      owned by AFP)
    PennsylvaniaThe
      Tenere Group, Inc. (Tenere)
      (100%
      owned by First Professionals)
    MissouriIntermed
      Insurance Company (Intermed)
      (100%
      owned by Tenere)
    MissouriTrout
      Insurance Services, Inc.
      (100%
      owned by Intermed)
    MissouriInterlex
      Insurance Company
      (100%
      owned by Intermed)
    MissouriInsurance
      Services, Inc.
      (100%
      owned by Intermed)
    Missouri
**Exhibit 21**

**SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT**

ALFA CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES 

(As of June 30, 2006) 

Alfa Corporation (a Delaware corporation)

Alfa Life Insurance Corporation (an Alabama corporation) 

Alfa Insurance Corporation (an Alabama corporation) 

Alfa General Insurance Corporation (an Alabamacorporation) 

Alfa Vision Insurance Corporation (an Alabama corporation) 

Alfa Agency Mississippi, Inc. (a Mississippi corporation) 

Alfa Agency Georgia, Inc. (a Georgia corporation) 

Alfa Financial Corporation (an Alabama corporation)

Alfa Benefits Corporation (an Alabama corporation) 

The Vision Insurance Group, LLC (a Tennessee limited liability company)
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Franz Flory, Deceased.

Surrogate’s Court, New York County,

July 1, 1936.

*Berton L. Maxfield,*for the petitioners.

*Paul Windels, Corporation Counsel,*for the chamberlain of the city of New York, respondent.

Delehanty, S.

The fund deposited with the city chamberlain was “ subject to the direction of this court.” By prior order a part payment was directed. The order then made contained a provision that it was without prejudice to any proceeding by petitioners to enforce their rights in any court. At the time that order was made the chamberlain had on hand in cash only part of the *817fund which he was directed to hold subject to the order of the court. The chamberlain now urges that the former order was in effect a confirmation of the investment of a balance of the fund and so urges that no further order may be made by the court in respect of the balance of the original fund not yet repaid. There is no doubt of the duty of the chamberlain or of the liability of the city. *(Matter of Schmidt*v. *Chamberlain of N. Y.,*266 N. Y. 225; *Von Seebeck*v. *City of New York,*156 Misc. 181.) There is no doubt that, the plenary power of this court (Surr. Ct. Act, §§ 20, 40) permits the making of the order here sought by petitioners. It is not necessary to resort to anything but the former order which expressly reserved the right to petitioner to get further relief. Accordingly, the motion to resettle the order by directing the immediate payment of the balance of the fund is granted.

Submit, on notice, resettled order accordingly.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-8522

RANDY L. VALENTINE, 

 Petitioner - Appellant, 

 v. 

CECILIA REYNOLDS, Warden, 

 Respondent - Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District 

Judge. (4:08-cv-00979-HMH) 

Submitted: May 21, 2009 Decided: May 27, 2009 

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Randy L. Valentine, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, 

III, Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy 

Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Randy L. Valentine seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate 

judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) 

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the 

constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or 

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district 

court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 

322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); 

Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have 

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Valentine 

has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a 

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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. 

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                  9
<MULTIPLIER>                           1,000

<S>                                                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                      9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>  DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>  SEP-30-1999
<CASH>   4,323
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>  5,824
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>   0
<TRADING-ASSETS>   0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>  55,794
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>  0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>    0
<LOANS>  131,419
<ALLOWANCE>   1,741
<TOTAL-ASSETS>     205,216
<DEPOSITS>    158,592
<SHORT-TERM>  6,977
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>     2,471
<LONG-TERM>   15,000
<COMMON> 2,225
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>   0
<PREFERRED>   0
<OTHER-SE>    19,950
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>    205,216
<INTEREST-LOAN>    7,915
<INTEREST-INVEST>  2,142
<INTEREST-OTHER>   82
<INTEREST-TOTAL>   10,139
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT> 3,809
<INTEREST-EXPENSE> 757
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>   5,573
<LOAN-LOSSES> 149
<SECURITIES-GAINS> 1,268
<EXPENSE-OTHER>    4,575
<INCOME-PRETAX>    3,208
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>   3,208
<EXTRAORDINARY>    0
<CHANGES>     0
<NET-INCOME>  2,244

<EPS-BASIC> 1.27
<EPS-DILUTED> 1.27
<YIELD-ACTUAL>     3.81
<LOANS-NON>   523
<LOANS-PAST>  30
<LOANS-TROUBLED>   0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>    2,050
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>   1,890
<CHARGE-OFFS> 179
<RECOVERIES>  30
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>  1,741
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>    1,741
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>     0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED> 1,352


</TABLE>
# Octaviano Larrazolo: A Featured Biography

**

----

In 1928 Octaviano Ambrosio Larrazolo was elected to fill the unexpired term of New Mexico senator Andrieus A. Jones, who had died in office. Upon taking his seat on December 7 of that year, he became the first Hispanic American to serve in the United States Senate. Larrazolo, who was born in Chihuahua, Mexico, on December 7, 1859, was known as a gifted orator and a champion of civil rights. A former teacher and principal, he was devoted to achieving equality in education for Spanish-speaking Americans. At the 1910 New Mexico constitutional convention, Larrazolo was instrumental in securing the inclusion of a provision recognizing the Spanish language for use in conducting public business. His commitment to ensuring equal citizenship rights for Hispanics led to his break with New Mexico’s Democratic Party in 1911. In 1918 he was elected as a Republican to the office of governor of New Mexico. His brief three-month service in the Senate 10 years later opened the doors for other Hispanic Americans.

All Featured Biographies

        -  Contact 
        -  Leadership & Officers 
        -  Former Senators 
        -  Qualifications & Terms of Service 
        -  Facts & Milestones 
        -  States 

### Organizational Chart 

This chart shows the relationships among Senate leaders and officers who manage the flow of legislative and administrative business in the Senate.  

### Contact Your Senator 

Can't find your senator's name in the list of Senators?  Perhaps he or she is a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, or a Senator in your State Legislature.

### Biographical Directory 

The Directory provides information about former and current senators.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 98-2506

___________

Frank Watts, II, *

 *

Appellant, *

 *

v. *

 * Appeal from the United States

U.S. Postal Service; Pulaski County * District Court for the

Regional Detention Facility, Postal * Eastern District of Arkansas

Service, *

 * [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: August 31, 1998

 Filed: September 18, 1998

___________

Before McMILLIAN, RICHARD S. ARNOLD, and MORRIS SHEPPARD

ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Frank Watts II appeals from the final judgment entered in the District Court for

the Eastern District of Arkansas dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action without

prejudice. Watts had filed his action from the Arkansas prison facility where he was

confined (the Varner Unit), complaining of prior occurrences in a county detention

facility. The district court believed that Watts had not provided his correct address,

because court correspondences sent to him at the county facility were returned as
-2-

undelivered. After the district court ordered Watts to submit a correct address or face

dismissal, he timely responded that his address had not changed from the Varner Unit

address he had listed on his complaint. Apparently unaware of Watts&s response, the

district court dismissed the complaint without prejudice.

Upon review of the record, we note it appears that there was a

miscommunication about Watts&s correct address and that, in fact, he had not changed

his address or failed to respond to the district court&s order.

Accordingly, we vacate the judgment and remand to the district court for further

proceedings.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , 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.

December 23, 2015

t1222 

# Order

Clerk December 23, 2015

151963

COLBY SMITH,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 151963

COA: 318702

Lenawee CC: 11

- 004180

- NO

MICHIGAN PALLET, INC., JONATHAN J.

POORTENGA, and KENNETH ENGELSMA,

Defendants

- Appellants,

and

LPS EQUIPMENT & ACQUISITION

COMPANY, INC., ADRIAN ROCSKAY, TODD

STRONG, JAMES KIVELL, and JOHN DOE,

Defendants.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 2, 2015

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in

lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE the judgment of the Court of Appeals and

we REMAND this case to the Lenawee Circuit Court for entry of an order granting the

motion for summary disposition filed by the defendants

- appellants. The Court of

Appeals erred by finding that the plaintiff established a prima facie case of an inten tional

tort falling within the exception to the worker’s compensation exclusive remedy that is

found at MCL 418.131(1). There is no evidence in this case that the defendants had a

specific intent to injure the plaintiff. Nor does the evidence establish t hat the defendants

“had actual knowledge that an injury was certain to occur and willfully disregarded that

knowledge.” Id. See also Travis v Dreis & Krump Mfg Co, 453 Mich 149 (1996).
NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 08a0593n.06 F iled: October 2, 2008 Case No. 05- 3886 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT JEFF WINKELMAN, etal., P lai nt iffs- App e lla nt s,

v. P ARM A C ITYSCH OOL D ISTRIC T, Defendan t-Appellee.

_______________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P EA L F RO M THE UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE NORT HERN DI STR IC T OF OHI O

BEF OR E: SILE R, BA TC HELD ER , a nd R OG ER S, C ir c uitJudg e s. ALICE M. BATCHEL DER, Circ uit Jud ge. Th e pa re nts of an a uti sti c c hil d s ue d th e ir loc a l sc ho ol d istri c t, a lle g ingthat the sc ho ol dis tr ic t ha d f a ile d to pr ov ide a

“ fr e e a pp ro pr ia te pu

bli c education” (F APE) in acc ordanc e with the Individuals with Disabilit ies Education Act (I DEA), 20 U.S.C. § 1400, et seq. , and see king r emuner ation for doingso themselves, as we ll as a cour t order direc ting the sc hool district to do so i n the future . Both pa rties moved for j u d gm en t on the administrative re cord a

nd the district court rule d for the sc hool district. The pare nts appea led. The district cour

t had allowed the pare nts to procee d pr o s e , bu t wh e n the c a se re a c he d th is court on a ppeal, we order ed the pa

rents to obtain counse l, lest their appea l be dismissed. I nstead, the y pe tit ion e d the Sup re me Court fo r ce rt ior ari , w hic h th e Court g ra nte d. Ul tim a te ly , th e Court he ld that pa re nts have ri g hts un de r I DE A i nd e pe nd e nt o f t he ri g hts of

the ir c hil d, th e pare nts ’ r ig hts encompa ss the child’s rig ht to a FAPE, and the pa rents may proce ed pr o s e on their own indepe ndent ri g hts . O n r e mand , w e are a g a in p re se nte d w iththe me ri ts q ue sti on s.2

The Winkelmans first argue that the d i s t rict cour t erre d by placingthe burde n of proof on them, rathe r than on the school district. Next, they argue that the district c ourt err ed by finding that the school district had provided the FAPE with r eg ard to music ther apy , occupational therapy , and speec h thera

py . Finally , they

contend that the district court err ed by approvingthe hea

ring office r’s decision to disreg ard the Winkelmans’ expert-witness’s testimony as not cre dible. Af te r c are fu lly

re vie wi ngthe re c or d, the law, and the argume nts pr e se nte d in the a pp e llate briefs, w e conc lude that each of the Winkelmans’ assig nments of er ror is without merit, and that the district court’s opinion, W ink e lm an v . P ar

ma Cty . S c h. Di st. , 411 F. Supp. 2d 722 (N.D . Ohio 2005),

corr ectly sets out the applicable law and c orre ctly ap p l i es t h at l aw to the f acts in the re cord. The issuance of

a full written opinion by

this court would serve no useful purpose . Acc ording ly , for the

rea sons stated in the district court’s opinion, we AF F IRM

.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 12

- 00634

- CR

LARRY HYSAW v. THE STATE OF TEXAS
On Appeal from the 28th District Court of Nueces County , Texas Trial Cause No. 12

- CR

- 0079

- A

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. July 3, 2014.