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

<ARTICLE>            5
              
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       2,117,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  859,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (706,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    889,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          93,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (92,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,318,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                     12,757,000
<COMMON>                                       532,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  2,000,000            
<OTHER-SE>                                 (24,257,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,318,000
<SALES>                                         28,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               170,000
<CGS>                                            5,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   10,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               134,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             438,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (412,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (104,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (308,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.09)
<FN>
<F1> CURRENT ASSETS AND CURRENT LIABILITIES VALUES
     ARE ZERO BECAUSE OF AN UNCLASSIFIED BALANCE SHEET.
        

</TABLE>
*This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

FEB 23 1999

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

EARL W. TALLEY, 

Petitioner-Appellant, No. 98-6345

v. (D.C. No. CIV-98-627-C)

TOM C. MARTIN, (W.D. Okla.)

Respondent-Appellee.

 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before TACHA, McKAY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

After examining Petitioner-Appellant’s brief and the appellate record, this

panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist

the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R.

34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Petitioner seeks a certificate of appealability to appeal the district court’s

dismissal of his writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Proceeding pro se, Petitioner challenged his conviction in Oklahoma state court
-2-

for making a false declaration of ownership to a pawnbroker after two previous

felony convictions. Although Petitioner raised numerous arguments in his habeas

corpus petition, the magistrate judge recommended that the petition be dismissed

as untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A), even in light of all the available

procedural and equitable tolling provisions. In its Order filed July 22, 1998, the

district court adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and

dismissed the petition as untimely.

This court has carefully considered and reviewed Petitioner’s application

for a certificate of appealability, his brief, and the record. Because Petitioner’s

conviction and sentence became final before April 24, 1996, he had until April

23, 1997, to file any habeas corpus petition. See United States v. Simmonds, 111

F.3d 737, 746 (10th Cir. 1997); see also Hoggro v. Boone, 150 F.3d 1223, 1226

(10th Cir. 1998). Petitioner did not file his application until May 5, 1998. We

agree with the magistrate judge and the district court that none of the procedural

and equitable tolling principles apply to make this petition timely. Further,

Petitioner’s unsupported claim of innocence, alleged for the first and only time in

this appeal, is not a sufficient basis for equitably tolling the period of limitation. 

Cf. Miller v. Marr, 141 F.3d 976, 978 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, U.S. , 119

S. Ct. 210 (1998). Because the section 2254 petition was time-barred, the district

court properly refused to address the merits of Petitioner’s claims.
-3-

Accordingly, we DENY Petitioner’s request to proceed in forma pauperis

on appeal, DENY him a certificate of appealability, and DISMISS the appeal. 

Entered for the Court

Monroe G. McKay

Circuit Judge
FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT JULY 30, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ 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. 06- 16601 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 06 -000 07 -C R -W L S -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 C L I F F O R D S T E W A R T , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e llan 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 M id d le D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( Ju l y 30, 2007) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B A R K E T T an dK R A V IT C H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: G e r a l d B . W i l l i a m s , appoi nt e d c ouns e l f orC l i f f or d S t e w a rt , ha s f

i l e d a2

m ot i on t o w i thdr a w on appe a l , s upport e d byabr i e f pr e pa r e d pur s ua ntt o A nde r s v. C a l i f orni a , 386 U . S . 738, 87 S . C t . 1396, 18 L . E d. 2d 493 ( 1967) . O uri nde pe nde nt r e vi e w of

the e nt i r e r e c or d r e ve a l s tha tc ouns e l ’ s a s s e s s m e ntof the r e l a t i ve m e r i tof th e ap p e a l is c o rr e c t. B e c au s e in d e p e n d e n t e x a m in a tio n o f th e e n tir e r e c o r dr e v e a ls n o arg u ab l e i ssu e o f m eri t , co u n sel ’ s m o t i o n t o w i th draw i s G R A N TED , a nd S t ew art ’ s co n v i ct i o n an dsen t en ce i s A FFI R M ED .
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0665

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

SCOTT ALAN LEHRKAMP,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including January 5, 2024, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 30 2023

10/30/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0665
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

WENDY MARIE PIERSON,

Petitioner, 

vs. 

STATE COURT,

Respondent.

8:23CV186

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on its own motion. On June 29, 2023, the Clerk of 

the Court sent an order to Petitioner at her last known address and it was returned to this 

Court as undeliverable. See Filing No. 10. Petitioner has an obligation to keep the Court

informed of her current address at all times. See NEGenR 1.3(e) and (g) (requiring pro 

se parties to adhere to local rules and inform the Court of address changes within 30 

days). This case cannot be prosecuted in this Court if Petitioner’s whereabouts remain 

unknown. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 

1. Petitioner must update her address within 30 days. Failure to do so will 

result in dismissal of this action without further notice to Petitioner. 

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send a copy of this order to Petitioner’s 

last known address at the Douglas County Department of Corrections.

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to set a pro se case management deadline 

in this case using the following text: August 11, 2023: check for address.

8:23-cv-00186-JFB-PRSE Doc # 11 Filed: 07/11/23 Page 1 of 2 - Page ID # 52
Dated this 11th day of July, 2023.

BY THE COURT:

Joseph F. Bataillon

Senior United States District Judge

8:23-cv-00186-JFB-PRSE Doc # 11 Filed: 07/11/23 Page 2 of 2 - Page ID # 53
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-2242

BARRETT L. CRAWFORD, Trustee - Appellant, versus JOHN ROBERT MULLINS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CA-03-12-5-V; BK-98-50517; AP-00-5013) Submitted: February 27, 2004 Decided: March 19, 2004 Before WILLIAMS, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard M. Mitchell, MITCHELL, RALLINGS, SINGER, MCGIRT & TISSUE, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. John Roberts Mullins, Appellee Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Barrett L. Crawford, the bankruptcy trustee in John Robert Mullins’ Chapter 7 bankruptcy case, appeals from the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order granting in part motions to quash subpoenas issued by Crawford to three law firms seeking the production of documents from the law firms related to the firms’ representation of Mullins or any communications between Mullins and the law firms. We have reviewed the record and lower courts’ opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Crawford v. Mullins , Nos. CA-03-12-5-V, BK-98-50517, AP-00-5013 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 10, 2003). 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.

AFFIRMED
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

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

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

IRVING C. HUMPHREY,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

JAMES A. YATES, Warden,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 11-17844

D.C. No. 1:09-cv-00075-LJO-JLT

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 9, 2012** 

Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Irving C. Humphrey, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the

district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging

deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in connection with his

FILED

OCT 17 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-17844

exposure to valley fever. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We

review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004), and we

affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant Yates

because Humphrey failed to establish a genuine dispute of material fact as to

whether Yates personally participated in any alleged constitutional violations. See

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009) (a plaintiff must plead that each

defendant violated the Constitution through his own individual actions); Taylor v.

List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989) (supervisor is liable for constitutional

violations of subordinates only if he “participated in or directed the violations, or

knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent them”); see also Toguchi, 391

F.3d at 1058 (prison officials act with deliberate indifference only if they know of

and disregard an excessive risk to inmate health).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Humphrey’s request

to appoint an independent medical expert because Humphrey failed to show that it

was necessary. See Walker v. Am. Home Shield Long Term Disability Plan, 180

F.3d 1065, 1071 (9th Cir. 1999) (setting forth standard of review and noting that

district court has discretion whether to appoint an expert under Fed. R. Evid.

706(a)).

AFFIRMED.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

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.

June 24, 2019

izm 

# Order

Clerk June 24, 2019

159817 (21)

In re GOLDMAN

_____________________________________

LANCE ADAM GOLDMAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 159817

CoA: 348483

KALAMAZOO CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE,

Defendant

- Appellee.

______________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion to waive fees is considered and it is

DENIED because MC L 600.2963 requires that a prisoner pursuing a civil action be liable

for filing fees.

Initially, MCL 600.2963(8) does not bar the present application based on

outstanding fees appellant owes this Court in Goldman v Dept of Corrections, MSC 155758

under In re Jackson , __ Mich App __ (Docket No. 339724, issued December 27, 2018)

because this application relates to an underlying criminal case and it is manifest that

appellant cannot currently pay the outstanding fees.

Appellant is not required to pay an initi al partial fee. However, for an appeal to be

filed, within 21 days of the date of this order, appellant shall submit a copy of this

order and refile the copy of the pleadings returned with this order . By doing this,

appellant becomes responsible to pay th e $375.00 filing fee. Failure to comply with this

order shall result in the appeal not being filed in this Court.

If appellant timely refiles the pleadings, monthly payments shall be made to the

Department of Corrections in the amount of 50 percent of the deposits made to appellant’s

account until the payments equal the balance due of $375.00. This amount shall then be

remitted to this Court.

Pursuant to MCL 600.2963(8), appellant shall not file a new civil action or appeal

in this Court until the entry fee in this case is paid in full.

The Clerk of the Court shall furnish two copies of this order to appellant and return

a copy of appellant’s pleadings with this order.
2005 Annual Incentive Award Measures



 Exhibit 10(s) 
  
 2005 Annual Incentive Award Measures 
  
 The Compensation Committee of Lincoln National Corporation’s Board of Directors set corporate performance measures as
well as additional measures for particular business units under the Lincoln National Corporation Incentive Compensation Plan, as amended and restated on March 8, 2001. The 2005 corporate performance measures are: 
  

	 	•	 	growth in our income from operations per share, 


	 	•	 	return on equity and 


	 	•	 	sales growth relative to industry-based indices. 

  
 The 2005 performance measures for the chief executive officer of the Investment Management segment also include the investment performance of assets
managed by the segment. 
  
 The 2005 performance goals for the
chief executive officer of the Lincoln Financial Advisors (“LFA”) include the following corporate goals: 
  

	 	•	 	growth in income from operations per share and 


	 	•	 	return on equity. 

  
 In addition, LFA’s goals include LFA income from operations and LFA sales growth relative to industry-based indices. 
  
 Income from operations is defined as net income determined in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”) excluding, as applicable, the after-tax effects of realized gains or losses on investments and derivatives, restructuring charges, gains (losses) related to reinsurance embedded
derivatives/trading account assets, cumulative effect of accounting changes, reserve changes on business sold through reinsurance net of related deferred gain amortization, gains (losses) on the sale of subsidiaries and blocks of business and loss
on early retirement of debt, including subordinated debt. This is the measure that the Compensation Committee uses to evaluate the performance of our businesses. Return on equity as used above is calculated based on income from operations.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 179 (Monday, September 15, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 53197]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21402]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XK47


New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of a public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is 
scheduling a public meeting of its Habitat/MPA/Ecosystem Committee, in 
October, 2008, to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in 
the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will 
be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if 
appropriate.

DATES: This meeting will be held on Thursday, October 2, 2008, at 9:30 
a.m.

ADDRESSES: This meeting will be held at the Radisson Hotel, 180 Water 
Street, Plymouth, MA 02360; telephone: (508) 747-4900; fax: (508) 747-
8937.
    Council address: New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water 
Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, 
New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Committee will continue development of 
analytical aspects of Phase II of the Omnibus Habitat Amendment 2. The 
Committee will also review preliminary vulnerability assessment for 
determining adverse effects on essential fish habitat caused by fishing 
and develop Committee recommendations for Magnuson Stevens Act required 
five-year update of Council research priorities. The Committee may also 
consider other topics at their discretion.
    Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come 
before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject 
of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to 
those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising 
after publication of this notice that require emergency action under 
section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has 
been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address 
the emergency.

Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. 
Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids 
should be directed to Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, at (978) 465-
0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Authority:  16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: September 10, 2008.
Tracey L. Thompson,
Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. E8-21402 Filed 9-12-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S
#### LEE et al. v. TEXAS LOUISIANA COACHES, Inc., et al.

No. 2636.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

June 6, 1944.

Rehearing Denied June 30, 1944.

*348McCoy & King, of Lake Charles, and A. R. Lecompte, of DeRidder, for appellants.

E. L. Stewart, of DeRidder, for appellees.

DORE, Judge.

This suit grows out of the same collision as is involved in the suit of Matthis et al. v. Texas Louisiana Coaches, La.App., 18 So.2d 345. The pleadings are practically the same. Mrs. Louise Lee and her husband, Dewey Lee, instituted this suit to recover the sum of $15,250 for general injuries received by Mrs. Lee and for medical expenses paid by her husband.

This suit was tried by the trial judge prior to the trial of the Matthis case, but was not decided until the trial and decision of the Matthis case. There was more evidence introduced in the Matthis case.

The trial judge, almost nine months after the trial of the case, gave lengthy reason for a judgment for the plaintiff, Mrs. Lee, in the sum of $1,000, and for the plaintiff Mr. Lee in the sum of $22.

In due time defendants filed a motion for a new trial, setting forth they had discovered new evidence since the trial and submission of the case, to wit, the testimony of Elton Manuel, who had appeared as a witness in the Matthis case, and also the deposition of Mr. D. W. Weeks, introduced in the Matthis case; that such evidence was material to the issues in this case.

The motion for a new trial was overruled with written reasons. The judgment was then read and signed. The defendants have appealed.

The issues in this case are the same as in the Matthis case, save that the defendants complain of the overruling of their motion for a new trial. However, the defendants, in oral argument and in brief, admit that if liability is found by us in the Matthis case, then there is no necessity in passing upon the motion for new trial.

In the Matthis case we concluded that there was negligence on the part of the bus driver contributing to the accident and that the defendants were liable. Therefore there is no necessity of passing on the motion for a new trial, and for the reasons assigned in the Matthis case, there is liability in this case.

The defendants, however, seriously contend that the amount awarded to Mrs. Lee is excessive.

The evidence shows that plaintiff was-knocked unconscious, and remained so for a short period of time. When she regained consciousness, she had her head resting on her brother’s lap and she was then taken to Dr. Frazer’s Clinic at De Ridder, where it was found that she had suffered a small cut above her right eye, a small cut on her left knee, and some minor bruises. Her wounds were sutured. There was no bone injury. She was discharged and allowed to go home the same day. According to the medical testimony there was no permanent injury.

We are of the opinion that the award is-excessive and that the sum of $500 is ample to compensate plaintiff, Mrs. Lee, for her temporary injuries, and accordingly it is ordered that the judgment be amended by reducing the award to Mrs. Lee to $500, and as thus amended it is affirmed.
Exhibit 31.1

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

I, Lewis S. Sharps, M.D., certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Positive Physicians Holdings, Inc.; and

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.

 

 

Date: May 19, 2020

 

|        |                                                               |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------|
| By:    | /s/ Lewis S. Sharps, M.D.       |
|   |      Lewis S. Sharps, M.D.           |
|   |      Chief Executive Officer         |
|   |                                                          |