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


<ARTICLE>                                   9

<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE
     QUARTERLY  REPORT  ON FORM  10-QSB  AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY  BY
     REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL INFORMATION.
</LEGEND>

<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000

<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                  DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          2,324
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          2,563
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                    0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                    0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     9,842
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          3,525
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            3,414
<LOANS>                                       118,262
<ALLOWANCE>                                       607
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                143,198
<DEPOSITS>                                    112,042
<SHORT-TERM>                                    2,500
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                               543
<LONG-TERM>                                    13,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                          108
<OTHER-SE>                                     14,505
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                143,198
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 4,633
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                 545
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                5,178
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              2,387
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              2,739
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           2,440
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      75
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 2,028
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   680
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                      414
<EPS-BASIC>                                      0.46
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.46
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                   3.72
<LOANS-NON>                                       237
<LOANS-PAST>                                      188
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                    0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                     0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                  582
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      53
<RECOVERIES>                                        3
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                 607
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                              607
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                           607



</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2610

MYRA R. EDWARDS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, AFBCMR; MALCOLM GROW UNITED STATES AIR FORCE MEDICAL CENTER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA98-4190) Submitted: January 13, 2000 Decided: January 19, 2000 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Myra R. Edwards, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on November 12, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on November 16, 1999. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986). 2 PER CURIAM: Myra R. Edwards appeals the district court’s order denying her motion to reopen her case based on newly discovered evidence. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Edwards v. Department of the Air Force AFBCMR , No. CA-98-4190 (D. Md. Nov. 16, 1999). * We dispense withoral 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
#### Harry BERNER v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Feb. 11, 1938.

Martin A. McCormack and Maxwell J. Gruber, both of Cleveland, Ohio, for appellant.

E. B. Freed, U. S. Atty., of Cleveland, Ohio, for the United States.

*1011Before HICKS, SIMONS, and ALLEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

It is ordered that the appeal in this cause be, and the same is, dismissed for want of prosecution, the costs to be charged against the government as constructive earnings.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Darren Starr

v. Civil No. 05-cv-368-JD

Major Cox, et al.

O R D E R

Plaintiff’s motion seeks to compel further answers and

responses to Interrogatory No. 2 and 7 and Request for Production

No. 2. Defendants object.

Discussion

Local Rule 37.1 requires that a discovery motion include a

verbatim recitation of each interrogatory or request in the

motion or as an attachment. The reason for the rule is so the

court can focus on what is at issue and not be required to guess

at the issues. Plaintiff has not done that properly here.

1. The motion complains about the inadequacy of the

response to Interrogatory No. 2. It also purports to quote

No. 2 but in fact Attachment A to the motion refers to

Interrogatory No. 7 incorporating No. 5 and Exhibit 2 to the

objection contains an interrogatory no. 2 that is quite

Case 1:05-cv-00368-JD Document 76 Filed 08/23/07 Page 1 of 3
2

different from the purported no. 2 quoted in the motion. 

The court is left to guess as to whether or what is at

issue. Is it no. 2 as set forth in Exhibit 1, a different

no. 2 that has not been provided, or no. 5 that is at issue? 

This part of the motion is denied without prejudice to

refile appropriately under LR 37.1.

2. Request for Production No. 2. The request and

supplemental response are set forth as exhibit F to the

motion. It is clear from defendant’s response, their

Objection and exhibit 5 to the Objection that defendants

have fully responded to this request. The motion is denied

as to Request No. 2.

3. Interrogatory No. 7 Attachment A to the motion

sets forth the interrogatory and the answer. The answers

were clarified by further response. See Attachment C to the

motion. While plaintiff may not like the lack of

specificity of the answers, defendants cannot be compelled

to answer what they do not know and cannot reasonably find

out. Plaintiff must be satisfied with what has been 

Case 1:05-cv-00368-JD Document 76 Filed 08/23/07 Page 2 of 3
3

recalled and defendants will be held to their answers. 

Denied as to No. 7.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: August 23, 2007

cc: Darren Starr, pro se

Case 1:05-cv-00368-JD Document 76 Filed 08/23/07 Page 3 of 3
#### Shonte Novell MOSLEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ernest C. ROE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 01-57246.

D.C. No. CV-01-05410-NM.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 10, 2003.*

Decided March 17, 2003.

Before CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

California state prisoner Shonte Novell Mosley appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition as procedurally barred. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(a). Reviewing de novo, *Alvarado v. Hill,*252 F.3d 1066, 1068 (9th Cir.2001), we affirm in part and reverse and remand in part.

The California Supreme Court denied Mosley’s habeas petition, which was filed after *In re Robbins,*18 Cal.4th 770, 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 153, 959 P.2d 311 (1998), as untimely. We recently concluded that California’s untimeliness rule is an independent state ground for cases initiated after *Robbins. See Bennett v. Mueller,*
      *740296 F.3d 752 (2002), *amended on denial of reh’g,*322 F.3d 573, 574, 582-583 (9th Cir. 2003). We therefore affirm the district court’s ruling on the issue of independence.

In *Bennett,*we did not decide whether California’s untimeliness rule is also an adequate state ground, but we explained where the burden of proof on this issue lies. *Id.*at 583-586. Because this is a new standard, we reverse on the issue of adequacy and remand for the district court to reconsider in light of *Bennett.*
      *1*

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED AND REMANDED in part.

**This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

. We decline the State’s invitation to consider whether Mosley's petition is timely because the district court has not yet addressed this issue.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Joseph Sawtell

v. Case No. 06-cv-229-SM

NH State Prison, Warden

O R D E R

I herewith approve the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge

Muirhead dated April 7, 2009, no objection having been filed, for the reasons set

forth therein. 

SO ORDERED.

April 30, 2009

 _________________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Joseph Sawtell, pro se

Counsel of Record

Case 1:06-cv-00229-SM Document 35 Filed 04/30/09 Page 1 of 1
I

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

DERRICK RICK

NO. 2023 KW 1258

MARCH 22, 2024

In Re: Derrick Rick, applying for supervisory writs, 21st

Judicial District Court, Parish of Tangipahoa, No. 

98377. 

BEFORE: McCLENDON, HESTER, AND MILLER, JJ. 

WRIT DENIED. Relator failed to carry his burden of proof on

his factual innocence claim. See La. Code Crim. P. art. 930. 2. 

Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion by

dismissing the application for postconviction relief in its

entirety. 

URT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

TY CLERK OF COURT

FOR THE COURT
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         1172582
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          821477
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                   35723510
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                        23846428
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                          23983309
<LOANS>                                       43813844
<ALLOWANCE>                                     200000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               108565514
<DEPOSITS>                                    65706691
<SHORT-TERM>                                   1000000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            1294089
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         25921
<OTHER-SE>                                    40538815
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               108565514
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                1827356
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              1649743
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                326508
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               3803607
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             1484267
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             1548620
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          2254987
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    19895
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                1316018
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1321451
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     1321451
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    795496
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.31
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                     62422
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                200000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    19895
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               200000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            200000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
# U nit ed Sta tes C ou rt o f A pp eal s For t h e Firs t C ircu it

No. 07-2108 JOHN W. LIVICK, Plaintiff, Appellant,

v . THE GILLETTE COMPANY; THE GILLETTE COMPANY RETIREMENT PLAN, Defendants, Appellees.

ERRATA SHEET The opinion of this Court issued on April 17, 2008, is corrected as follows: On page 2, last line: replace "Brunidge" with "Brundige" On page 5, lines 13-14: replace "Gillette's . . . ERISA" with "Gillette was in breach of its fiduciary duty to Livick under ERISA because of these "misrepresentations."" On page 5, lines 16-17: replace "both his years at Gillette and at Parker Pen" with "his years at bot h G illette and Parker Pen." On page 11, note 5, line 3: add "29" before "C.F.R." On page 13, note 7, line 8: add an additional parenthesis after "1994" to read "(5th Cir. 1994))"
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1447 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1447

To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to clarify the right 
 of nationals of the United States to make contributions in connection 
                 with an election to political office.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 4, 2001

 Mr. Faleomavaega introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                 the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to clarify the right 
 of nationals of the United States to make contributions in connection 
                 with an election to political office.

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

SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF RIGHT OF NATIONALS OF THE UNITED STATES TO 
              MAKE POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS.

    Section 319(b)(2) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
U.S.C. 441e(b)(2)) is amended by inserting after ``United States'' the 
following: ``or a national of the United States (as defined in section 
101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act)''.
                                 <all>
```
#### In re Todd W. SHORT, Debtor. Todd W. Short, Appellant, v. William E. Loose; Paypal, Incorporated; Charter Communications; United States Bankruptcy Administrator, Appellees.

No. 03-1418.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted July 1, 2003.

Decided Aug. 8, 2003.

Todd W. Short, Appellant Pro Se. John Lawrence Bramlett, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Todd Wilson Short noted this appeal from the district court’s order dismissing his appeal from several bankruptcy court orders. The district court dismissed the appeal noting that Short had been declared incompetent by the General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division, Buncombe County, North Carolina, and a guardian had been appointed to represent his interests. Therefore, the court concluded that Short lacked the capacity to note the appeals. For the reasons that follow, we vacate the district court’s order and remand for further proceedings.

Short asserted that the general guardian appointed by the North Carolina court was not acting in his or his bankruptcy estate’s best interest. When such a conflict exists, the court is required to determine whether appointment of a guardian ad litem is necessary to protect the interests of the ward, even if the incompetent person already has a general representative. *See*Fed. R.Civ.P. 17(c); *T.W. ex rel. Enk v. Brophy,*124 F.3d 893, 896 (7th Cir.1997); *Adelman ex rel. Adelman v. Graves,*747 F.2d 986, 988 (5th Cir.1984); *Hoffert v. General Motors Corp.,*656 F.2d 161, 164 (5th Cir. 1981). The determination of the need to appoint a guardian ad litem is reviewed for abuse of discretion. *See Gardner ex rel. Gardner v. Parson,*874 F.2d 131, 138-39 (3d Cir.1989); *Hoffert,*656 F.2d at 164.

*236The district court’s failure to exercise its discretion by considering whether Short was adequately represented by his general guardian requires that we remand this case to the district court for the proper inquiry pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c) and the court’s inherent powers. *See James v. Jacobson,*6 F.3d 233, 239 (4th Cir.1993); *see also Adelman,*747 F.2d at 988 (remanding case where district court failed to consider adequacy of guardian’s representation of ward).

Accordingly, we grant Short’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, vacate the district court’s order dismissing Short’s appeals from the bankruptcy court, and remand the case to the district court for an inquiry into the adequacy of the general guardian’s representation of Short’s interests. 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.

*VACATED AND REMANDED.*
Case 1:06-cv-00286-JD Document 73-6 Filed 09/25/2008 Page 1 of 6Case 1:06-cv-00286-JD Document 73-6 Filed 09/25/2008 Page 2 of 6Case 1:06-cv-00286-JD Document 73-6 Filed 09/25/2008 Page 3 of 6Case 1:06-cv-00286-JD Document 73-6 Filed 09/25/2008 Page 4 of 6Case 1:06-cv-00286-JD Document 73-6 Filed 09/25/2008 Page 5 of 6Case 1:06-cv-00286-JD Document 73-6 Filed 09/25/2008 Page 6 of 6
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1517

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to increase the per resident

payment floor for direct graduate medical education payments under

the Medicare Program.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 4, 2001

Mr. SHAW (for himself and Mr. BACHUS) introduced the following bill; which

was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to

the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently

determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILL

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to increase

the per resident payment floor for direct graduate medical education payments under the Medicare Program.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 1517 IH

1 SECTION 1. INCREASING TO 100 PERCENT OF THE LOCAL2 ITY ADJUSTED NATIONAL AVERAGE PER

3 RESIDENT AMOUNT THE PAYMENT FLOOR

4 FOR DIRECT GRADUATE MEDICAL EDU5 CATION PAYMENTS UNDER THE MEDICARE

6 PROGRAM.

7 Section 1886(h)(2)(D)(iii) of the Social Security Act

8 (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(h)(2)(D)(iii)), as amended by section

9 511 of Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improve10 ment and Protection Act of 2000 (113 Stat. 2763A–533),

11 as enacted into law by section 1(a)(6) of Public Law 106–

12 554, is amended by striking ‘‘85 percent’’ and inserting

13 ‘‘100 percent’’.

Æ
Case 1:05-cv-00038-JD Document 1-1 Filed 02/02/05 Page 1 of 9
Case 1:05-cv-00038-JD Document 1-1 Filed 02/02/05 Page 2 of 9
Case 1:05-cv-00038-JD Document 1-1 Filed 02/02/05 Page 3 of 9
Case 1:05-cv-00038-JD Document 1-1 Filed 02/02/05 Page 4 of 9
Case 1:05-cv-00038-JD Document 1-1 Filed 02/02/05 Page 5 of 9
Case 1:05-cv-00038-JD Document 1-1 Filed 02/02/05 Page 6 of 9
Case 1:05-cv-00038-JD Document 1-1 Filed 02/02/05 Page 7 of 9
Case 1:05-cv-00038-JD Document 1-1 Filed 02/02/05 Page 8 of 9
Case 1:05-cv-00038-JD Document 1-1 Filed 02/02/05 Page 9 of 9
Exhibit 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Eagle Broadband, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the  three-month  period ended November 30, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Tom
Matura,  Principal  Accounting Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  ss. 1350, as adopted  pursuant to ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the  requirements  of section 13(a) or 15(d),
as applicable, 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.

Date:  January 18, 2005

/s/ TOM MATURA
----------------------------
Tom Matura
Principal Accounting Officer
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-20-00072-CV

A. R., Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

FROM THE 353RD DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY 

NO. D-1-FM-18-003020, THE HONORABLE LORA J. LIVINGSTON, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

The reporter’s record in this appeal was originally due to be filed on February 7, 

2020. To date, the reporter’s record has not been filed. 

The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure prohibit this Court from granting 

extensions of over 10 days for the filing of reporters’ records in accelerated appeals, including 

those from suits for termination of parental rights. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(c). Further, any 

extensions of time granted for the filing of the reporters’ records may not exceed 30 days 

cumulatively. See Tex. R. App. P. 28.4(b)(2). Accordingly, LaSonya Thomas is hereby ordered 

to file the reporter’s record in this case on or before February 20, 2020. If the record is not filed 

by that date, Thomas may be required to show cause why she should not be held in contempt of 

court.

It is ordered on February 11, 2020.

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Baker and Triana
#### Kelley FERRARO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Herbert W. MAITREJEAN and Liberty Mutual Insurance Corporation, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 18280.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

June 11,1945.

Luke Cutrera, of New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellant.

Jones, Flanders & Waechter, J. Mort Walker, Jr., and Elmer D. Flanders, all of New Orleans, for defendants-appellees.

JANVIER, Judge.

This suit arises out of the same accident which we discussed in the matter of Giorlando v. Maitrejean and Liberty Mutual Insurance Corporation, 22 So.2d 564.

Our reasons for affirming the judgment-dismissing this suit are given in that other case, 22 So.2d 564.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the judgment appealed from be, and it is, affirmed at the cost of appellant.

Affirmed.

WESTERFIELD, J., absent, takes no part.