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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          77,275
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,528
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        234
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                81,089
<PP&E>                                          57,935
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,817
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 175,378
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,460
<BONDS>                                            513
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            7,000
<PREFERRED>                                          1<F1>
<COMMON>                                             7
<OTHER-SE>                                     146,321
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   175,378
<SALES>                                          3,930
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                19,786
<CGS>                                              857
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   14,956
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,474
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (140)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       407
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (547)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (547)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.36)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.36)
<FN>
<F1>REPRESENTS PAR VALUE OF READING ENTERTAINMENT SERIES B PREFERRED STOCK.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Elena Katz

V .

Strafford County Department

of Corrections et al

Civil No . 08-cv-372-JD

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Elena Katz filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on

September 12, 2008 (document no . 1) . On September 23, 2008, Katz

filed a motion to amend her petition and a motion for an

emergency hearing (document nos . 3 & 4) . The petition and the

motion for emergency hearing stemmed from her detention on bail

pursuant to a criminal charge of interference with custody, as

well as her detention pursuant to a no-bail hold imposed at the

direction of immigration authorities .

On October 15, 2008, Katz contacted the office of the Clerk

of Court by telephone advising that she had been released from

incarceration . Katz further advised that she would file an

amendment or addendum to her habeas petition . On February 4,

2009, as the Court had received no further filings from

petitioner, Katz was directed to show cause why this matter

Case 1:08-cv-00372-JD Document 10 Filed 03/18/09 Page 1 of 2
should not be dismissed as moot by February 19, 2009 . Katz was

advised that a failure to show cause would result in my

recommendation that this matter be dismissed without prejudice .

Katz has not filed anything in response to my Order .

Accordingly, I recommend dismissal of this action without

prejudice .

Any objections to this report and recommendation must be

filed within ten (10) days of receipt of this notice . Failure to

file objections within the specified time waives the right to

appeal the district court's order . See Unauthorized Practice of

Law Comm . v . Gordon , 979 F .2d 11, 13-14 (lst Cir . 1992) ;

United States v . Valencia-Copete , 792 F .2d 4, 6(lst Cir . 1986) .

/s/ James R . Muirhead

James R . Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judg e

Date : March 18, 200 9

cc : Elena Katz, pro se

2

Case 1:08-cv-00372-JD Document 10 Filed 03/18/09 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32



Certificate 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 First Georgia Community Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, John L. Coleman, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 1. | To my knowledge, 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/ John L. ColemanJohn L. Coleman, President and C.E.O.(Principal Executive Officer)




August 13, 2004





---

Certificate 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 First Georgia Community Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Elaine S. Kendrick, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:



| | 1. | To my knowledge, 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/ Elaine S. KendrickElaine S. Kendrick, Secretary and Treasurer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)




August 13, 2004



2
BE IT REMEMBERED:

THAT at the term of the Honorable Court of Appeals for the Tenth District of the State of Texas, begun and holden at Waco on the 1st day of January, 2018, present Chief Justice TOM GRAY and Justices REX D. DAVIS and AL SCOGGINS

In the cause

No. 10-18-00181-CV

IN RE COLETTE SAVAGE

Original Proceeding

the following Judgment was entered on the 6th day of June, 2018:

“Came on to be heard the original Petition for Writ of Mandamus filed in this Court on May 24, 2018, by Relator Colette Savage, and the same having been considered, because it is the opinion of the Court that the Petition for Writ of Mandamus should be denied; it is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the Petition for Writ of Mandamus be, and hereby is, denied.  It is further ordered that the Relator Colette Savage, pay all costs in this behalf expended and incurred in this Court.”

I, SHARRI ROESSLER, Clerk of the Court of Appeals for the Tenth District of Texas, at the City of Waco, hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Judgment entered herein by this Court in the above entitled and numbered cause as appears of record in Minute Book 14, Page 485.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of said Court at Waco, this 6th day of June A.D. 2018.											

						SHARRI ROESSLER, CLERK

						By: ___________________________

							Nita Whitener, Deputy Clerk

# image1.jpeg

# image2.png
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 190 (Tuesday, September 30, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 56869]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22858]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities 
and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Wednesday, 
September 24, 2008, at 4:30 p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsels to the Commissioners, the Acting Secretary 
to the Commission, and certain staff members who have an interest in 
the matter will attend the Closed Meeting.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has 
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions as set 
forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(8) and (9) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(8) and (9), 
permit consideration of the scheduled matter at the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Casey, as duty officer, voted to consider the item 
listed for the closed meeting in closed session, and determined that no 
earlier notice thereof was possible.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Wednesday, 
September 24, 2008, will be: Matters related to the financial markets.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in 
the scheduling of meeting items. For further information and to 
ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, 
please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

    Dated: September 24, 2008.
Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-22858 Filed 9-29-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
e t i 1$0 Eik; 8:'8§~ Bide: ofTempOlw) Baltatlon om 1>03)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT .~ ,'_ _..... .,.."" , '"'- ~_.- . -'--_ ::.:.,._ _._ ~"'; ... 

District ofNew Hampshire 

United States ofAmerica 

v. Case Number: () c;-c£ -I () -tJl--:[L 

ORDER OF TEMPORARY DETENTION PENDING
 

HEARING PURSUANT TO BAIL REFORM ACT
 

Upon motion ofthe Lvemment 0 Defendant, it is ORDERED that a detention hearing is ......, 

set for _......::J:::..JI~4r-Llf1Io..1l!l\Uo.Iaa.....L-.v~v'--~/.1.(,-r'd-=---.;;.@.....E........:9 __ ... at __---L.9_=-.3:..lo1()L..-~aL.-:..~W1.:......:....-.:.-. _ D~e 7 Time 

before a judicial officer at the U. S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire at the Warren B. 

Rudman United States Courthouse, 55 Pleasant Street, Concord, New Hampshire. 

Pending this hearing, the defendant shall be held in custody by the United States Marshal or other 

authorized representative and produced for the hearing. 

Date: ,6jUJdf tates Magistrate udge 

tates District Judge 

cc: U.S. Attorney 

U.S. Marshal 

U.S. Probation
 

Defendant's attorney
 

·Ifnot held immediately upon defendant's first appearance, the hearing may be continued for up to three days upon motion ofthe 

Government, or up to five days upon motion of the defendant. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2). 

Ahearing is required whenever the conditions set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f) are present. Subsection (1) sets forth the grounds 

thatmaybe asserted onlyby the attorney for the Government; subsection (2) statesthat ahearing is mandated upon the motion ofthe attorney 

for the Govemmentor upon the judicial officer's own motion ifthere is a serious risk that the defendant (a) will flee or (b) will obstruct or 

attempt to obstruct justice, or threaten, injure, or intimidate, or attempt to threaten, injure, or intimidate a prospective witness or juror. 

Case 1:09-cr-00010-JL Document 7 Filed 01/15/09 Page 1 of 1
#### Otis HAMPTON et ux., Appellants, v. ATLAS SUBSIDIARIES OF TEXAS, INC., Appellee.

No. 7301.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Beaumont.

Dec. 30, 1971.

Will D. Pace, Tyler, for appellants.

Seward & Heitman, Dallas, for appel-lee.

DIES, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal from an order overruling the plea of privilege of appellants Otis Hampton and wife. The parties will be referred to as in the trial court.

Plaintiff Atlas Subsidiaries of Texas, Inc., brought suit in Dallas County on a promissory note payable in Dallas County, Texas, and also to foreclose a mortgage lien for improvements to property situated in Smith County, Texas. Prior to the Dallas County suit, plaintiff had foreclosed on the same property by Trustee’s Sale and Deed in Smith County, Texas. Defendants Hampton and wife contend that *408under Exception 14 of Article 1995, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St., venue should be in Smith County, Texas.

*Article 1995, subd. 14:*

> “Lands. — Suits for the recovery of lands or damages thereto, or to remove incum-brances upon the title to land, or to quiet the title to land, or to prevent or stay waste on lands, must be brought in the county in which the land, or a part thereof, may lie.”

It is the settled law of this state that suit may be brought in a county on a note payable in that county and foreclosure had in the same suit to realty elsewhere than the county of venue. Spikes v. Brown, 49 S.W. 725 (Tex.Civ.App.1899); Carlton v. Houston Agricultural Credit Corporation, 376 S.W.2d 363 (Tex.Civ. App., Austin, 1964, error dism.); Smith v. Realty Trust Co., 285 S.W. 907 (Tex.Civ. App., San Antonio, 1926, error ref.); Sumner v. Jester, 252 S.W. 1088 (Tex.Civ.App., Beaumont, 1923, no writ).

If the prior foreclosure in Smith County changes this doctrine, under a theory of election or estoppel, this would be a defensive plea and one not raisable on a venue hearing. Trinity Universal Ins. Co. v. Soliz, 251 S.W.2d 904, 905 (Tex.Civ. App., San Antonio, 1952, mand. overr.):

> *“ .*. . it is not the purpose of a venue hearing to determine whether or not a defendant has a good defense to. a plaintiff’s claim. An inquiry into the validity of affirmative defenses such as waiver, estoppel or election, is not pertinent to a plea of privilege hearing.”

See also Roadway Express v. Gaston, 90 S.W.2d 874, 880 (Tex.Civ.App., Texarkana, 1935, no writ); Ward v. Fairway Oil & Gas Company, 364 S.W.2d 452 (Tex.Civ.App., Texarkana, 1963, no writ):

> “Appellant’s single contention on appeal is to the effect that under the doctrine of judicial estoppel appellee could not rely on the written contract to fix venue in Smith County, Texas. This contention is not well taken. Judicial estoppel is an affirmative defense on the merits and not a venue fact.” [citing authorities omitted];

and also 60 Tex.Jur.2d, Venue, § 200.

The order of the trial court is affirmed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 09-cr-33-01/03-JL

Peterson et al

O R D E R

The assented to motion to reschedule jury trial (document no.

38) filed by defendant is granted in part. The continuance is

limited to 60 days.

Defendant shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights within 10

days. The court finds that the ends of justice served by granting

a continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the

defendant in a speedy trial, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), for the

reasons set forth in the motion.

SO ORDERED.

Joseph N. Laplante

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

Date: March 20, 2009

cc: Mark E. Howard, Esq. 

Michael J. Iacopino, Esq.

Donald A. Kennedy, Esq. 

U.S. Marshal

U.S. Probation

Case 1:09-cr-00033-JL Document 39 Filed 03/20/09 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2


              SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

         In connection with the Quarterly Report of CDSI Holdings Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, J.
Bryant Kirkland III, Chief Financial 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, to my 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.






August 9, 2005                         /s/ J. BRYANT KIRKLAND III
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       J. Bryant Kirkland III
                                       Vice President and Chief Financial
                                         Officer
Exhibit 99.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER



I, Eugene P. Heytow, Chief Executive Officer of First Oak Brook Bancshares, Inc. (the
Registrant), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:



| | (1) |  | the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Registrant, to which this certification is attached as an exhibit (the Report), fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and
| | --- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | (2) |  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materials respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.
| | --- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: March 19, 2003
                                        
                  /S/ EUGENE P. HEYTOW

---

Eugene P. Heytow

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 07-cr-72-01-SM

Osuyuwamen Ojo

O R D E R

Defendant Ojo’s motion to continue the final pretrial conference and trial is

granted (document 14). Trial has been rescheduled for the November 2007

trial period. Defendant Ojo shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights not later

than September 17, 2007. On the filing of such waiver, his continuance shall be

effective. 

The Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance

outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, 18

U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would

unreasonably deny defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances. 

Final Pretrial Conference: October 30, 2007 at 11:00 a.m.

Jury Selection: November 6, 2007 at 9:30 a.m.

Case 1:07-cr-00072-SM Document 15 Filed 09/05/07 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

September 5, 2007

cc: Bjorn Lange, Esq.

Terry Ollia, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00072-SM Document 15 Filed 09/05/07 Page 2 of 2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MELITON CARRILLO ROSALES, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

Nos. 17-72985 

19-71422 

Agency No. A200-244-536 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of Orders of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 18, 2019**

Before: FARRIS, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Meliton Carrillo Rosales, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review 

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders denying his motions to 

reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We 

review for an abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Agonafer 

v. Sessions, 859 F.3d 1198, 1203 (9th Cir. 2017). We deny the petitions for 

* 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).

FILED

SEP 24 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 17-72985 

review.

As to petition No. 17-72985, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying 

Carrillo Rosales’s second untimely motion to reopen because he failed to establish 

changed country conditions in Mexico to qualify for an exception to the time and 

number limitations for motions to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); 

Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990-91 (9th Cir. 2010) (evidence must be 

“qualitatively different” to warrant reopening).

Carrillo-Rosales’s request to terminate proceedings, as set forth in his 

opening brief, is denied.1

As to petition No. 19-71422, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying 

Carillo Rosales’s motion to reopen and terminate proceedings. See Karingithi v. 

Whitaker, 913 F.3d 1158, 1160-62 (9th Cir. 2019) (initial notice to appear need not 

include time and date information to vest jurisdiction in the immigration court).

The government’s motion for summary disposition (Docket Entry No. 11 in 

No. 19-71422) is granted because the questions raised by the petition for review in 

No. 19-71422 are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United 

1 Carillo-Rosales’s contention that the Notice to Appear did not contain the place 

of his removal hearing is unsupported by the record.
3 17-72985 

States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir. 1982) (stating standard).

Carrillo Rosales’s motion for a stay of removal (Docket Entry No. 5 in No. 

19-71422) is denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal will terminate upon 

issuance of the mandate.

PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.