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

<ARTICLE> 9
<S>                                <C> 
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                        DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                    1,084
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                    4,453
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                          3,200
<TRADING-ASSETS>                              0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>              49,822
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                   49,822
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                     49,822
<LOANS>                                 117,566
<ALLOWANCE>                             (1,105)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          180,101
<DEPOSITS>                              134,091
<SHORT-TERM>                                  0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                       1,313
<LONG-TERM>                              25,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<COMMON>                                     13
<OTHER-SE>                               19,684
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>          180,101
<INTEREST-LOAN>                           2,489
<INTEREST-INVEST>                           578
<INTEREST-OTHER>                            131
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                          3,198
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                        1,734
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        2,054
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                     1,144
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                60
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                           18
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                           1,274
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             474
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                  474
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                303
<EPS-PRIMARY>                               .29
<EPS-DILUTED>                               .28
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                             2.60
<LOANS-NON>                                 397
<LOANS-PAST>                                  0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                            424
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                              16                             
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                          1,007
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                53
<RECOVERIES>                                  1
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                         1,015
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                      1,015
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                           0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                       0
        

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 23.1****Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**To the Board of Directors and Shareholders of Footstar, Inc.:We consent to incorporation by reference in the registrationstatements (No. 333-20731, No. 333-30011, No. 333-41390 and 333-131652) on Form S-8of Footstar, Inc. (“the Company”) of ourreports dated March 13, 2008 with respect to the consolidated financial statements, the relatedfinancial statement schedule and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting asof December 29, 2007, which reports appear in the December 29, 2007 Annual Report on Form 10-K./s/ Amper, Politziner & Mattia, P.C.
FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS 

INFORMATION SHEET BY COURT REPORTERS 

You are expected to file the reporter’s record by the original due date. See Tex. R. App. P.35. If 

a reporter determines that the due date may not be met, please advise the Clerk of the Court of 

Appeals immediately in writing, stating the reason and the due date by which the record will be 

filed. Generally speaking, for good cause shown, the Court will grant no more than two 

extensions from the original record due date, each extension not to exceed 30 days in regular 

appeals and 10 days in accelerated appeals for a total period not to exceed 60 days in regular 

appeals and 20 days in accelerated appeals.

 

Appellate Case Number: Trial Court Case Number: 

(1) Is there a Reporter's Record? Y N

(2) Are you the only court reporter involved in this appeal? Y N

If not, please provide the names and addresses of all other court

reporters below.

(3) Has the appellant requested that the reporter’s record be prepared or 

has the trial court ordered that the record be prepared?

 Y N

(4) Please select from the following options:

 A. The appellant has paid for the record.

 B. The appellant has made arrangements to pay for the record

 C. The appellant is appealing as indigent.

 D. The appellant has not paid or made arrangements to pay for the

 record and is not appealing as indigent.

(5) Extension (fill out if extension is required for any reason other than payment)

I was unable to file the record in this appeal by ________. I expect the record 

in this appeal to be approximately _______ pages. The record covers 

_______days of testimony. I believe that I can file the record by _________. I 

ask that the court grant an extension until that time for filing the record.

Additional Comments: ___________________________________________

Court Reporter's Signature, Full Address, Email Address and Telephone Number: 

_______________________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________________

 FILED IN 14th COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 1/7/2015 4:17:33 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
May 9, 2013



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

MICHAEL NORVIL , Appellant

NO. 14

- 13

- 00237

- CV V.

BANK OF AMERICA , Appellee

________________________________ Today the Court heard its own motion to dismiss the appeal from the judgment signed by the court below on December 3, 2012. Having considered the motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED

. We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by appellant, Michael Norvil.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATIONS
OF THE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Nutrition 21, Inc., a New York
corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), Michael A.
Zeher, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant to
§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to his
knowledge:




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




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




/s/     Michael A.
      ZeherMichael
      A. Zeher
                President
      and Chief Executive Officer


May 15,
2009





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Nutrition 21, Inc. and will be retained by Nutrition 21, Inc. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

 v.

LOUIS JAMES ROMERO,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-30007

D.C. No. 4:12-cr-00051-BMM

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Montana

Sam E. Haddon, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 18, 2017** 

Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Louis James Romero appeals pro se from the district court’s order 

denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). 

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

FILED

JAN 25 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* 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). Romero’s request for oral

argument is denied. 
Romero contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under

Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We review de novo whether a

district court has authority to modify a sentence under section 3582(c)(2). See

United States v. Wesson, 583 F.3d 728, 730 (9th Cir. 2009). Because Romero was 

sentenced as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, the district court correctly

determined that he is not eligible for a sentence reduction. See id.

Contrary to Romero’s argument, the district court adequately explained its 

determination and it had no cause to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing 

factors. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 827 (2010) (only if defendant is 

eligible for a sentence reduction does the district court proceed to the step of 

considering the section 3553(a) sentencing factors). Romero’s arguments that he

should not have been sentenced as a career offender and that the district court 

violated double jeopardy when it enhanced his sentence based on a prior conviction 

are not cognizable in section 3582(c)(2) proceedings. See Dillon, 560 U.S. at 831. 

AFFIRMED.

2 16-30007
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4845 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent the 

deduction for mortgage insurance premiums. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 11, 2014 

Mr. NUNES (for himself and Mr. CROWLEY) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make 

permanent the deduction for mortgage insurance premiums. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT DEDUCTION FOR MORTGAGE IN4 SURANCE PREMIUMS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraph (E) of section 

6 163(h)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amend7 ed by striking clause (iv). 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 this section shall apply to amounts paid or accrued after 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 4845 IH

1 December 31, 2013, and to amounts properly allocable to 

2 periods after such date. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

GERRICK BUSL and JILL BUSL,

Appellants,

v.

SHAPIRO, FISHMAN & GACHÉ, LLP,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-2345 

[May 31, 2018]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St.

Lucie County; Robert E. Belanger, Judge; L.T. Case No. 2016-CA-000520.

W. Trent Steele and Millie Orrico of Law Offices of W. Trent Steele, 

Steele Law, Hobe Sound, for appellants.

Ileen J. Cantor and Ronald M. Gaché of Shapiro, Fishman & Gaché, 

LLP, Boca Raton, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, TAYLOR and LEVINE, JJ., concur. 

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### Sarah Dubose, by her next friend, plaintiff in error, *vs.*Edward McDonald, defendant in error.

Where a wife, with consent of her husband, rents land on her own account, hires a man to cultivate it, and furnishes a’nd feeds a horse, out of her separate estate, to be used in making the crop, the crop, when *472made, is not subject to a factor’s lien given by her husband on *Ms*crop, made the same year, for provisions furnished, especially when the evidence shows that none of the provisions furnished were used by the wife in making her crop.

Factor’s lien. Husband and wife. Separate estate. Before Judge Harrell. Randolph county. At Chambers. February 9 th, 1872.

Edward McDonald levied an execution, based on a factor’s lien, on two bales of cotton as the property of Sidney Dubose. Sarah Dubose, by her next friend, filed a claim to said cotton, which was tried before the Justice Court for the Seven Hundred and Eighteenth District, Georgia Militia, and said property found subject. The claimant presented her petition for the writ of *certiorari*to Judge Harrell, which set forth substantially the following facts as appearing from the evidence in said cause: That Sidney Dubose, the husband of claimant,

purchased from McDonald provisions, bagging and ties, to assist him in making his crop for the year 1870, and gave to him a factor’s lien upon said crop; that the cotton levied on was not put up in said bagging; that Sidney Dubose farmed separate from his wife, and had no interest whatever in her farm; that he did not furnish her with supplies of any kind; that he borrowed some corn from his wife which he returned from corn purchased from McDonald; that Sarah Dubose rented the land she farmed 'on, and furnished her own provisions; that the cotton levied on is the cotton made by said Sarah Dubose; that McDonald sold no supplies of any kind to Sarah Dubose.

The writ of *certiorari*was refused, and plaintiff in error excepted.

Worrill & Chastaine, for plaintiff in error.

Hood & Kiddoo, for defendant.

*473Montgomery, Judge.

Since the Act of 1866 and the Constitution of 1868, section 2, Article 7, married women who have no trustee stand very much upon the same footing as *femes*sole, exceptas to contracts of suretyship, etc., as to their separate property: *Huff vs.*

*Wright,*39 *Ga.,*41. The evidence in this case shows that the wife had separate property; that she hired the farm on which the cotton levied on was made, with her husband’s assent ; that out of her separate estate she furnished and fed a horse to work the farm; that none of the provisions furnished to her husband by the plaintiff in *fi. fa.*were used in making her crop, except in so far as her husband out of them returned to her some corn he had borrowed from her; that her husband had nothing to do with her farm. We think, then, under the foregoing facts, the factor had no more right to levy his liep execution on her crop than he had to levy it on the crop of any stranger.

Let the judgment be reversed.
No. 1,626.

#### STATE PUBLISHING CO., Appellant, *v.*NEIL, Respondent.

*Appeal from District Court, Lewis and Clarice County; II. C. Smith, Judge.*

On motion to dismiss appeal.

Decided June 18, 1903.

*Mr. II. J. Burleigh,*and *Mr. C. B. Nolan,*for Appellant.

*Messrs. Carpenter & Carpenter,*for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

Upon motion of counsel for the appellant herein, this'appeal is dismissed; each party to pay his or its own costs.
# Court of Appeals

**First District of Texas**

BILL OF COSTS

No. 01

- 15

- 00591

- CV

Compacta Construction, Inc.

v

.

Larg Management Group LLC

NO. 2015

- 22315 IN THE 215TH DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS C OUNTY

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID/DUE STATUS PAID BY

MT FEE
CLK R ECORD
MT FEE
RPT RECORD
STATEWIDE EFILING
FILING $10.00 $144.00 $10.00 $137.00 $20.00 $175.00 08/26/2015
08/14/2015
08/07/2015
07/20/2015
07/15/2015
07/15/2015 E

- PAID
PAID
E

- PAID
UNKNOWN
PAID
PAID ANT
ANT
APE
ANT
ANT
ANT 

### The costs incurred on appeal to t he First Court of Appeals Houston, Texas are $496.00.

Court costs in this case have been taxed in this Court’s judgment

I, Christopher A. Prine , Clerk o f the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas, do hereby certify that this is a true statemen t of the costs of appeal in this case.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my hand and the seal of the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas, this November 23, 2015

.
**GREENPOINT
      MORTGAGE FUNDING, INC.**




**SERVICER
      COMPLIANCE STATEMENT**




**SACO
      2006-12**





I,
        Michael De Francesco, an authorized officer of GreenPoint Mortgage Funding,
        Inc.
        (the "Servicer"), certify that:
  1.  A
        review of
        the Servicer's activities during the period from and including January 1,
        2006
        through and including December 31, 2006 (or applicable portion thereof) and
        of
        the Servicer's performance under the applicable servicing agreement has been
        made under my supervision.
 2.  To
          the
          best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled
          all of
          its obligations under the applicable servicing agreement in all material
          respects throughout such period.
  Capitalized
            terms used but not defined herein have the meanings ascribed to them
            in the
            Agreement.
  Date:
            February 28, 2007
   /s/
            Michael De Francesco
 Michael
            De Francesco
 Senior
            Vice President, Loan Administration
**EXHIBIT        10.20**

**EMPLOYMENT        AGREEMENT**

**RECITALS**

**AGREEMENT**

***Employment***
***.***

***Term***
***.***

***Duties***
***.***

***Compensation***
***.***

***Other        Benefits***
**.**

***Reimbursement        of Expenses***
***.***

***Termination        of Employment; Effect of Termination***
***.***

***Non-Competition;        Non-Interference***
**.**

***Non-Disclosure        of Confidential Information***
**.**

***Proprietary        Property***
***.***

***Right        to Injunction***
***.***

***Miscellaneous***
**.**

*Amendment        or Alteration*
*.*

**(b)**
***Governing        Law***
***.***
**        This Agreement shall be governed in all respects by the laws of the State        of        Texas, without application of the conflict of laws principles        thereof.**

*Severability*
*.*

*Notices*
*.*

*Waiver        or Breach*
*.*

*Entire        Agreement and Binding Effect*
*.*

*Assignment*
*.*

*Headings*
*.*

*Counterparts*
*.*

*Attorneys’        Fees*
*.*

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             APR-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                  JAN-31-2000
<CASH>                                                  0
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   1,377,586
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (198,900)
<INVENTORY>                                       467,438
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                1,942,003
<PP&E>                                          7,993,212
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (5,166,439)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  4,975,552
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           2,380,189
<BONDS>                                         1,530,669
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                        4,181,697
<OTHER-SE>                                     (3,117,003)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    4,975,552
<SALES>                                         5,699,734
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                5,858,373
<CGS>                                           4,181,087
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   4,181,087
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                174,720
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (284,441)
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (284,441)
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (284,441)
<EPS-BASIC>                                         (0.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (0.10)



</TABLE>
<PAGE>



                                                                    Exhibit 99.2



    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


        I, Jeffrey L. Rutherford, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer, of LESCO, Inc. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

        (3)     The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period
                ended June 30, 2002 which this certification accompanies fully
                complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
                Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


/s/ Jeffrey L. Rutherford
--------------------------
Jeffrey L. Rutherford
Senior Vice President,
Chief Financial Officer


August 9, 2002
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D20-1102

_____________________________

KEON M. LYNCH,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Lester Bass, Judge.

September 30, 2020

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

MAKAR, OSTERHAUS, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Keon M. Lynch, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Exhibit
23.0





CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





The Board
of Directors


Sugar
Creek Financial Corp.





We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (No.
333-142098 and No. 333-152440) on Form S-8 of Sugar Creek Financial Corp. of our
report dated June 26, 2009 of Sugar Creek Financial Corp., which appears in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K.





/s/
      Michael Trokey & Company, P.C.Michael
      Trokey & Company, P.C.Certified
      Public Accountants





June 26,
2009


St.
Louis, Missouri
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATIONS
OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002




In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Nutrition 21, Inc., a New York
corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31,
2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), Alan
J Kirschbaum, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, does hereby certify,
pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to
his knowledge:




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




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




/s/    
      Alan J KirschbaumAlan
      J Kirschbaum
                    Chief
      Financial Officer


February
12, 2010





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Nutrition 21, Inc. and will be retained by Nutrition 21, Inc. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
#### Bessie C. Clark, Respondent, v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Appellant.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion.
Professional Fees $ 4,839,060.50

Less 100% Travel Fees* (726,190.00) 

Total Current Fees 4,112,870.50 

Expenses 363,770.79

Total Invoice $ 4,476,641.29

*AP Services, LLC ("APS") has engaged in discussions with the United States Trustee with regard to a 

reasonable amount of compensation for non-working travel. Pending the resolution of such discussions, APS has 

not included any non-working travel charges in this Monthly Staffing and Compensation Report. APS is, 

therefore, submitting this Monthly Staffing and Compensation Report at this time, without prejudice to seeking 

compensation for such non-working travel in a subsequent filing.

Exhibit A

AP SERVICES, LLC

Summary of Compensation and Expenses – Pacific Gas and Electric Company, et al.

For the Period April 1, 2019 through April 30, 2019

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2587-1 Filed: 06/18/19 Entered: 06/18/19 15:12:18 Page 1

of 1