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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       2,236,018
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,266,446
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (8,276)
<INVENTORY>                                    130,436
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,371,589
<PP&E>                                      66,190,849
<DEPRECIATION>                             (8,885,392)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              63,368,161
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       53,274,936
<BONDS>                                      1,833,477
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,179
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,252,569
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                63,368,161
<SALES>                                      5,248,147
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            41,700,045
<CGS>                                        2,938,962
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               37,720,376
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           7,546,878 <F1>
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,485,367)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,485,367)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,485,367)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.49)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.49)
<FN>
<F1> Net of interest capitalized of $507,286
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18

- 20160 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
VICTOR MANUEL GARCIA GARCIA, also known as Luis Antonio Barrientos, also known as Victor Hugo Tajiboy

- Chay , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:17

- CR

- 636

- 1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Victor Manuel Garcia Garcia has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in
accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States
v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Garcia Garcia h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 30, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 18-20160 Document: 00514622500 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/30/2018No. 18

- 20160

2 reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment t hat the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 18-20160 Document: 00514622500 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/30/2018
FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT D e c e m be r 22, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK

Honora ble Wm. Terre ll Hodge s, United States District Judg e for the Middle District of * Florida , sitti ngby

designation. [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 13025

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 02 -005 86 -C R -8-1 U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s J E S U S A L V E A R U R I B E , a .k .a . P r im a z o , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o rth e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( D e c e m b e r 22, 2006) B ef ore D U B IN A and W IL S O N , C i rc ui tJudg es , and H O D G E S , D i stri ctJudg e. * P E R C U R I A M:2

D e f e nda nt/A ppe l l a ntJ e s us A l ve a rU r i be ( “ U r i be ” ) appe a l s hi s c onvi c t i on a nd s e nt e nc e f

orc ons pi r a c y t o pos s e s s c oc a i ne a nd m e tha m phe t a m i ne w i th the i nt entt o d i stri bu t e, i n v i ol at i on of 21 U . S . C . §§ 84 1(b)(1)(A )( i i ), 84 1(b)(1)(A )( vi i ), 846, a nd pos s e s s i on of

m e tha m phe t a m i ne w i th the i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e , i n vi ol a t i on of 21 U . S . C . §§ 84 1(a) (1), 84 1(b)(1)(A )( vi i i ) and 18 U . S . C . § 2 . T here ar e three i s s ue s on appe a l : ( 1) w he the rthe di s tr i c tc ourtc om m i tt e d pl a i n e rr ori n a dm i tt i ng i nt o e vi de nc e gove rnm e nt - pr oduc e d E ngl i s h tr a ns c r i pt s of S pa ni s h t e l e phone c o n v e r s a tio n s c o n ta in in g h an d w r itte n n o ta tio n s id e n tif y in g U r ib e a s as p e a k e rin vi ol at i on of Cr aw

f ord v . W as hi ngton , 541 U . S . 36, 124 S . C t . 1354, 158 L . E d. 2d 1 7 7 (2 0 0 4 ); (2 ) w h eth erth e d istrict co u rt ab u se d it s d iscr etio n in d en yin g U rib e’s m ot i on for am i stri al w hen a w i tness for the go vernm entst at ed on di re ct e x a m in a tio n th a t h e w a s r e lu c ta n t to te s tif yb e c au s e h e f

e a r e dth a t s o m e o n e w o u ld ha rm hi s f

a m i l y ; a nd ( 3) w he the rthe di s tr i c tc ourte rr e d i n a ttr i but i ng t o U r i be f or se nt enci ng pu rposes a quant i ty of drugs se i ze d ata l ocat i on w here U ri be w as never s e e n . A f t e rc a r e f ul l y c ons i de r i ng the br i e f s , r e vi e w i ng the r e c or d on appe a l , a nd he a r i ng or a l a r gum e nt , w e f i nd no e rr oron the pa rtof the di s tr i c tc ourta s t o a ny of these i ss ues. A cc ordi ng l y, w e a ff i rm U ri be’ s c on vi ct i on and sent ence . A FFI R M ED .
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 156 (Tuesday, August 12, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46961-46962]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18567]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i> 11355]


Idaho Disaster <greek-i> ID-00008.

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major 
disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Idaho (FEMA-1781-
DR), dated 07/31/2008.
    Incident: Flooding.
    Incident Period: 05/15/2008 through 06/09/2008.
    Effective Date: 07/31/2008.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 09/29/2008.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 05/01/2009.

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

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of 
the President's major disaster declaration on 07/31/2008, Private Non-
Profit organizations that provide essential services of governmental 
nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above 
or other locally announced locations.
    The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected 
by the disaster:

Primary Counties: Kootenai, Shoshone.
Contiguous Counties (Economic Injury Loans Only):
    Idaho: Benewah, Bonner, Clearwater.
    Montana: Mineral, Sanders.
    Washington: Spokane.

    The Interest Rates are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other (Including Non-Profit Organizations) With Credit             5.250
 Available Elsewhere:........................................

[[Page 46962]]

 
Businesses and Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit             4.000
 Available Elsewhere:........................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage and for 
economic injury is 11355.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59002 and 59008)

Herbert L. Mitchell,
Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
 [FR Doc. E8-18567 Filed 8-11-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of First Priority Financial Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2013, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David E. Sparks, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:



| | (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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                    |  |  |  |  |  |                                     
|------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | ------------------------------------
|Dated: May 20, 2013 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ David E. Sparks                 
|                    |  |  |  |  |  | David E. Sparks,                    
|                    |  |  |  |  |  | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
#### Mary M. Sweeney, Respondent, *v.*The Metropolitan Surety Company, Appellant.

Second Department,

November 27, 1908.

Surety — appeal bond—pleading — failure to allege that principal has not paid judgment.

The complaint in an action against the surety on an appeal bond providing that if the principal shall pay any judgment recovered against him, the obligation shall be void, need not allege that the judgment recovered is unpaid, for payment is a matter of defense;

Appeal by the defendant, The Metropolitan Surety Company, from an interlocutory judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Kings on the 19th day of May, 1908, upon the decision of the court, rendered after a trial at the Kings County Special Term, overruling the defendant’s demurrer to the complaint.

*23
      *Charles Haldane [David McClure*with him on the brief], for the appellant.

*Saul S. Myers [Edward B. Levy*with him on the brief], for the respondent.

Gaynor, J.:

The defendant gave its bond to the plaintiff as surety with Can-let as principal to pay $1,000 to the plaintiff; the condition of the bond being “ that if the said principal shall pay any judgment which may be recovered against him in the above entitled action ” (in which this plaintiff was the plaintiff), *“*then this obligation to be void”. The complaint alleges the recovery of a judgment, but contains no allegation that it is unpaid. This case is no exception to •the general rule that payment has to be pleaded as a defence. That the condition of the bond depends on payment by one other than this defendant does not make a difference. The bond is not to be construed, as the appellant contends, as an obligation in form to pay the judgment if the defendant therein does not, in which an allegation of non-payment might be necessary to the complaint. It is an absolute undertaking to pay, followed by a condition that it shall be void upon payment, which is the usual form.

The judgment should be affirmed.

Woodward, Hooker, Rich and Miller, JJ., concurred.

Interlocutory judgment affirmed, with costs.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, November 30, 2023.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, November 30, 2023

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A24I0076. KRISTOPHER ALLEN et al v. STEVE HARRIS.

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of 

this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record 

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

20105756
# United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 96-2526

___________ Great West Casualty Company; * International Business & * Mercantile Reassurance Company, * * Plaintiffs - Appellants, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * District of South Dakota. * Travelers Indemnity Company, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Defendant - Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: February 12, 1997 Filed: April 4, 1997

___________ Before MAGILL, BEAM, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. First American Systems, Inc. (“FAS”), an independent insurance agency doing business in South Dakota, served as genera l agent for the parties to this a ction, plaintiffs Great West Casualty Company and its affiliat e (col lectively “Great West”), and defendant Travelers Indemnity Compan y (“Travelers”). Travelers was also FAS’s major s ecured creditor. FAS went into bankruptcy owing both Great West and Travel ers substantial unremitted insurance premiums. Great West sued Travelers, alleging that Travelers’ actions as FAS’s dominant secured creditor caused Great West’s losses in the FAS bankruptcy, m aking Travelers liable to Great West for conversion, tortious interference with contract, negligence, and breach of fiduciary duty.

### The HONORABLE RICHARD H. BATTEY, Chief Judge of the United 1 

### States District Court for the District of South Dakota. -2- Applying South Dakota law, the district court granted summar y 1 judgment in favor of Travelers, concluding (i) that Travelers did not hav e the degree of actual, total control over FAS needed to make Traveler s lia ble for the debts of FAS; (ii) that Travelers is not liable i n conversion because it did not exercise dominion and control over FAS’ s disbursement of insurance premiums to insurers such as Great West; (iii) that Travelers’ actions as secured creditor did not tortiously interfere with FAS’s disbursement of insurance premiums to Great West; and (iv) that Great West’s negligence and fiduciary duty claims fail for lack of evidenc e that Travelers breached such duties.

On appeal, Great West argues that the district court erred in it s applic ation and interpretation of the South Dakota law of tortiou s interference and conversion, and that a genuine issue of material fac t exists as to whether Travelers exercised actual control over the failing FAS. Having carefully considered the record and reviewed the grant o f sum mary judgment de novo, we conclude that the district court correctl y applied South Dakota law to the facts of this case viewed in the light mos t favorable to Great West. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated in the court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order dated May 9, 1996. See 8th Cir. Rule 47B.
A true copy.

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

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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.

_________________________________________ Clerk November 7, 2012

h1031 

# Order

November 7, 2012

142252

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 142252

COA: 293279

Oakland CC: 2008

- 222521

- FC

JOHN PHILLIP BEVERLEY,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 19, 2010

judgment of the Court of App eals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

M ARILYN K ELLY

, J., would grant leave to appeal.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 584 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 584

 To direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey a fish hatchery to 
                           the State of Iowa.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 19, 1995

  Mr. Leach introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                         Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey a fish hatchery to 
                           the State of Iowa.

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

SECTION 1. CONVEYANCE OF THE FAIRPORT NATIONAL FISH HATCHERY TO THE 
              STATE OF IOWA.

    (a) Conveyance.--Within 180 days after the date of the enactment of 
this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall convey to the State of 
Iowa without reimbursement all right, title, and interest of the United 
States in and to the fish hatchery described in subsection (b) for use 
by the State for purposes of fishery resources management.
    (b) Hatchery Described.--The fish hatchery described in subsection 
(a) is the Fairport National Fish Hatchery located in Muscatine County, 
Iowa, adjacent to State Highway 22 west of Davenport, Iowa, including 
all real property, improvements to real property, and personal 
property.
    (c) Use and Reversionary Interest.--The property conveyed to the 
State of Iowa pursuant to this section shall be used by the State for 
purposes of fishery resources management, and if it is used for any 
other purpose all right, title, and interest in and to all property 
conveyed pursuant to this section shall revert to the United States.
                                 <all>
```
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ANTHONY BOSCH,

 Appellant,

v.

ALIETTE BOSCH,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

 § 

No. 08-08-00184-CV

Appeal from the

388th Judicial District Court

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 2007CM2817)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pending before the Court is Appellee Aliette Bosch’s motion to dismiss this appeal for

lack of jurisdiction. Finding that a final, appealable order has not been entered by the trial court,

we will dismiss the appeal.

Final judgment was entered in this case by the trial court on February 19, 2008. 

Subsequently, however, the trial court granted Mr. Bosch’s motion for new trial on issues of

conservatorship, support, and arrearages. The notice of appeal was filed following entry of the

trial court’s order granting a new trial.

Appellate courts generally have jurisdiction over final judgments, and such interlocutory

orders as the Legislature deems appealable by statute. See TEX.CIV.PRAC.&REM.CODE ANN.

§ 51.012 and § 51.014 (Vernon 2008); Ruiz v. Ruiz, 946 S.W.2d 123, 124 (Tex.App.--El Paso

1997, no pet.). Because issues of conservatorship, support, and arrearage remain pending due to

the trial court’s decision to grant Mr. Bosch’s motion for new trial, the February 19, 2008

judgment is not final and appealable. Therefore, Appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal for
-2-

lack of jurisdiction is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

Also pending before the Court are Appellant’s motions to supplement the reporter’s

record and to extend the time to file an appellant’s brief. Given the disposition of Appellee’s

motion to dismiss the appeal, we deny these remaining motions as moot.

November 6, 2008

DAVID WELLINGTON CHEW, Chief Justice

Before Chew, C.J., McClure, and Carr, JJ.

McClure, J., Not Participating
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED April 22, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-10974 Conference Calendar

CHARLES WILBURN SAMPLES, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus LESLIE WOODS, Warden Allred Unit; KENNETH R. BRIGHT, Major; TIMOTHY TALLMAN, Correctional Officer III; LADONNA MITCHELL, Correctional Officer III; THOMAS KIRBY, Correctional Officer III; KENNETH LATHAM, Sergeant; MARK E. ADKINS, Lieutenant; JAMES W. HART, JR., Captain; NFN SMITH, Property Officer; DEBRA SIZEMORE, Correctional Officer; JESSE CORRECTIONAL OFFICER; BRIAN A. POLLOCK, Correctional Officer; ERNEST D. IVEY, Disciplinary Hearing Officer; CHERYL D. BERGER, Unit Grievance Coordinator; ALVIN L. EASTERLING, Unit Grievance Coordinator; BELINDA GENTRY, Open Records Coordinator; HERMON DIDLO, Psychology Dr.; JOHN WOMBLE, Dr.; NFN KING, Correctional Officer; PAMELA FRENCH, Correctional Officer; JOHN WIRTZ, Sergeant; DAVID LAMBERT, Sergeant, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 7:01-CV-31-R

-------------------- Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Charles Wilburn Samples, a Texas prisoner (# 683547), challenges the district court’s denial of his application toNo. 02-10974 -2- proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) on appeal following the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Samples is effectively challenging the district court’s certification that he should not be granted IFP status because his appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor , 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); F ED . R. A PP . P. 24(a). By failing to direct his motion solely to the district court’s reasons for the certification decision, however, Samples has effectively abandoned the only issue that is properly before this court. See Baugh , 117 F.3d at 202; Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, Samples’ request for IFP status is DENIED, and his appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh , 117 F.3d at 202 & n.24; 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. The dismissal of this appeal as frivolous and the dismissal of the complaint as frivolous by the district court both count as “strikes” for purposes of the “three strikes” provision, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996). Samples is cautioned that if he accumulates three strikes, he will not be permitted to proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; THREE-STRIKES BAR

WARNING ISSUED.