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

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                       2,726,635
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                            12,218,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 32,768,242
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      13,596,306
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        13,698,964
<LOANS>                                     41,065,329
<ALLOWANCE>                                  1,069,831
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             105,922,377
<DEPOSITS>                                  88,185,122
<SHORT-TERM>                                11,001,263
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            454,192
<LONG-TERM>                                    900,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  2,749,508
<COMMON>                                       336,760
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,295,532
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             105,922,377
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              1,966,698
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            1,398,512
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               333,512
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             3,698,722
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             946,154
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,273,822
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        2,424,900
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  150,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              2,352,151
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                445,127
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     445,127
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   445,127
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.27
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                       0
<LOANS-NON>                                    721,052
<LOANS-PAST>                                 1,038,563
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  1,637
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               936,090
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   89,505
<RECOVERIES>                                    73,246
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            1,069,831
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           715,479
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        354,352
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7377

CORNELIOUS ROBINSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, and LATEEF AZEEM LUTALO; DONNIE R. MORGAN; JOHN F. WEIKEL, Plaintiffs, versus JAMES B. FRENCH; SHERWOOD B. MCCABE; DAUNA BERTRUM; GEORGE L. JONES; JAMES E. STRICKLAND, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-98-401-5) Submitted: February 11, 1999 Decided: February 24, 1999 Before ERVIN, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cornelious Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Cornelious Robinson appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A.§ 1915A (West Supp. 1998). Robinson alleges deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs and denial of First Amendment rights to a religious diet. After reviewing the record and the district court’s opinion, we conclude that Robinson fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and dismiss the appeal forthat reason. Robinson fails to allege facts sufficient to demonstrate a constitutional violation. 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
EXHIBIT 32.2

                WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

Solely  for the  purposes  of  complying  with 18 U.S.C.  Section  1350,  I, the
undersigned  President  and Chief  Executive  Officer of The Chalone Wine Group,
Ltd. (the "Company"),  hereby certify that to his knowledge the Quarterly Report
on Form 10-Q of the  Company  for the  quarter  ended  September  30,  2003 (the
"Report")  fully  complies  with  the  requirements  of  Section  13(a)  of  the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report
fairly presents,  in all material respects,  the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.  This written  statement is being furnished to the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  as an exhibit to such Form 10-Q. A signed
original of this statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained
by the Company and furnished to the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission or its
staff upon request.


By:            /S/ THOMAS B. SELFRIDGE
          -----------------------------------
                 Thomas B. Selfridge

November 14, 2003
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WAYNE ROMANS,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

INCLINE VILLAGE GENERAL

IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 11-17153

D.C. No. 3:10-cv-00403-RCJ-VPC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Robert C. Jones, Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 10, 2012**

Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Wayne Romans appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing his

action alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Arizona state

law. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of

discretion the district court’s application of laches. Grupo Gigante SA De CV v.

FILED

SEP 24 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-17153

Dallo & Co., 391 F.3d 1088, 1101 (9th Cir. 2004). We reverse and remand.

The district court abused its discretion by sua sponte dismissing the action

based on laches because, at this point in the proceedings, the record is insufficient

to determine whether Romans received a valid right-to-sue letter from the Nevada

Employment Rights Commission giving him notice of his deadline to file suit,

whether Romans delayed filing his suit, and whether defendant was prejudiced. 

See Brown v. Cont’l Can Co., 765 F.2d 810, 814-15 (9th Cir. 1985) (laches not

available as a matter of law where material disputes exist as to whether plaintiff

delayed seeking a right-to-sue letter or filing suit, and not applicable unless

defendant was prejudiced); cf. Boone v. Mech. Specialties Co., 609 F.2d 956, 958-

60 & n.3 (9th Cir. 1979) (applying laches at summary judgment where plaintiff’s

seven-year delay in seeking right-to-sue letter caused defendant actual prejudice).

Accordingly, we remand for further proceedings.

Each party shall bear its own costs on appeal.

REVERSED and REMANDED.
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 23-50623

Summary Calendar

____________

Tyrone Stafford, 

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Arnold S. Zwicke, Executive Sheriff, Guadalupe County Sheriff’s 

Office; Magistrate Judges, Guadalupe County; 

County/District Attorney, Guadalupe County; District 

Court of Texas Judges 274th, 25th, 2nd 25th, Guadalupe County; 

Guadalupe County Commissioners; Greg Abbott; Ken 

Paxton; Dave Wilborn, Guadalupe County Attorney; Arlene 

Gay; Tillie Luke; Guadalupe County Court at Law #1; 

Guadalupe County Court at Law #2; Supreme Court of 

Texas; Corporal F/N/U Doss, Guadalupe County Sheriff’s Office; 

G. I. Castillo, Guadalupe County Sheriff’s Office; 

Deputy F/N/U/ Gipson, Guadalupe County Sheriff’s Office, 

Defendants—Appellees.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 5:22-CV-314

______________________________

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 25, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-50623 Document: 48-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/25/2024
Before Smith, Southwick, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Tyrone Stafford filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleging that deputies of the Guadalupe County Sheriff’s Office used excessive force during a 

traffic stop in January 2022. The district court granted summary judgment 

in favor of the defendants, concluding that Stafford failed to demonstrate a 

constitutional violation. Stafford moves to proceed in forma pauperis

(“IFP”) on appeal, which constitutes a challenge to the district court’s certification that any appeal would not be taken in good faith because Stafford will 

not present a nonfrivolous appellate issue. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 

202 (5th Cir. 1997). Stafford’s motion to supplement his reply brief is 

GRANTED.

Stafford devotes a majority of his initial brief to challenging the legality 

of his arrest. He does not meaningfully question the district court’s reasons 

for finding that the deputies did not use excessive force and therefore were 

entitled to qualified immunity. Thus, Stafford abandons the primary issue 

on appeal. See Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 

748 (5th Cir. 1987). Furthermore, Stafford abandons his § 1983 claims 

against the remaining defendants by not raising them on appeal. See Yohey v. 

Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224–25 (5th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, Stafford fails to 

raise a nonfrivolous issue with respect to the summary judgment. See Baugh, 

117 F.3d at 202 n.24; Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). 

The appeal is without arguable merit and is thus frivolous. See Howard 

v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, the motion to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See

Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 23-50623 Document: 48-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/25/2024
ACTION OF THE DECEMBER 10, 2014, EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING

VOTED that the Executive Committee, on behalf of the Board of Regents pursuant to Bylaw 

3.01, approves the amended minutes of the April 7, 2014, Board of Regents’ meeting. 

[2014.12.01]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>              5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
THE FORM 10-Q FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                 0000743239
<NAME>                GLEASON CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER>          1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                            9943
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    82069
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      65834
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 15948
<PP&E>                                          262336
<DEPRECIATION>                                  139060
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  329921
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           101252
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         11594
<OTHER-SE>                                      112142
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    329921
<SALES>                                         166812
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                166812
<CGS>                                           115311
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   115311
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 40734
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 354
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  10413
<INCOME-TAX>                                      4443
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               5970
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      5970
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .61
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .60


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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000743870
<NAME>                        RANCON REALTY FUND IV
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1.000
<CASH>                                         6,709
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  161
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    545
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               6,764
<PP&E>                                         48,552
<DEPRECIATION>                                 14,510
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 43,782
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          714
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     27,274
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   43,782
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1,727
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  753
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               667
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             378
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (71)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (71)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (71)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.92)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.92)



</TABLE>
* 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. 07-50976

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

BENJAMIN RUBALCABA-VAZQUEZ

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:07-CR-523-ALL

Before STEWART, OWEN and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Benjamin Rubalcaba-Vazquez was convicted of one count of attempted

illegal reentry into the United States and sentenced to serve 76 months in

prison. Rubalcaba-Vazquez appeals his sentence. He argues that the district

court erred by including three of his prior convictions in his criminal history

score. He contends that these convictions should not have been scored because

he was not represented by counsel in connection with these convictions. He thus

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 10, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-50976

2

contends that the district court used the wrong guidelines sentencing range

when sentencing him and that his range should have been significantly lower.

When reviewing a sentence, we typically consider whether the district

court committed procedural error at sentencing and whether the sentence

imposed is substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586,

594 (2007); see also United States v. Cisneros-Guiterrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th

Cir. 2008). The district court’s interpretation and application of the Guidelines

are reviewed de novo, and its findings of fact are reviewed for clear error. See

Cisneros-Guiterrez, 517 F.3d at 764.

Rubalcaba-Vazquez’s sentencing claim, however, is reviewed for plain

error only because it was not presented to the district court. See United States

v. Hernandez-Martinez, 485 F.3d 270, 272 (5th Cir. 2007). Under the plain error

standard of review, “reversal is not required unless there is (1) an error; (2) that

is clear or plain; (3) that affects the defendant’s substantial rights; and (4) that

seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial

proceedings.” United States v. Vasquez, 216 F.3d 456, 459 (5th Cir. 2000).

Rubalcaba-Vazquez’s claim is unavailing. The record does confirm

Rubalcaba-Vazquez’s assertion thatthe disputed convictions were uncounseled.

However, the record does not show whether these convictions were uncounseled

because Rubalcaba-Vazquez validly waived his right to counsel or because he

was uninformed of his right to counsel. Consequently, Rubalcaba-Vazquez has

not carried his burden of showing that the disputed convictions were

constitutionally infirm, nor has he shown plain error in connection with his

sentence. See United States v. Osborne, 68 F.3d 94, 100-01 (5th Cir. 1995). The

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
# Daniel K. Inouye: A Featured Biography  

**

----

Daniel K. Inouye was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, on September 7, 1924, received his undergraduate degree from the University of Hawaii, and his law degree from George Washington University. During World War II, Inouye served in the U.S. Army’s 442nd Regimental Combat Team. Composed of soldiers of Japanese ancestry, the 442nd became one of the most decorated military units in U.S. history. For his combat heroism, which cost him his right arm, Inouye was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor, the Distinguished Service Cross, the Bronze Star, and the Purple Heart with Cluster. Following the war, he practiced law in Hawaii before entering territorial politics in 1954. When Hawaii became the 50th state, Inouye became one of its first representatives in the U.S. Congress. In 1962 he won election to the U.S. Senate. Senator Inouye gained national distinction in the 1970s as a member of the Senate Watergate Committee and, in 1987, as chairman of the Senate Iran-Contra Committee. He was a longtime member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, which he chaired from 2009 to 2012, and also served as the Senate’s president pro tempore from 2010 until his death in 2012. In 2013 Senator Inouye was posthumously awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, becoming the first—and to date, only—senator to receive both the Medal of Freedom and the Medal of Honor. 

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.
Exhibit 23.1




Consent
      of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm




En
      Pointe
      Technologies, Inc.


El
      Segundo, California




We
      hereby
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
      Form
      S-8 (Nos. 333-58528, 333-58536, 333-90037, 333-64785, 333-06395, 333-10583,
      333-33323 and 333-88828) of En Pointe Technologies, Inc. of our report dated
      December 4, 2007 relating to the consolidated financial statements and
      financial statement schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K.






/s/
      Rose,
      Snyder & Jacobs


A
      Corporation of Certified Public Accountants


Encino,
      California


December
      17, 2007
#### Frank Toscano, Appellant, v. The Delaware and Hudson Company, Respondent.

Order unanimously affirmed, with costs.
**Exhibit 15**

 

Letter Regarding Unaudited 

InterimFinancial Information 

 

Alfa Corporation 

Montgomery, Alabama 

 

Ladies and Gentlemen: 

 

Re: RegistrationStatement No. 33-83134 on Form S-3 and 33-77916 and 33-76460 on Form S-8 

 

Withrespect to the subject registration statements, we acknowledge our awareness of the use therein of our report dated August 4, 2004, related to our review of interim financial information. 

 

Pursuant to Rule 436 under the Securities Act of 1933 (the Act), our report dated August 4, 2004 related to our review of interim financialinformation is not considered part of a registration statement prepared or certified by an accountant, or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of the Act. 

 

KPMG LLP 

 

Birmingham, Alabama 

August 4, 2004