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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          39,344
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,235
<ALLOWANCES>                                       257
<INVENTORY>                                     26,360
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               134,634
<PP&E>                                          70,773
<DEPRECIATION>                                  17,972
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 263,184
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           75,529
<BONDS>                                         75,550
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,886
<OTHER-SE>                                      53,380
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   263,184
<SALES>                                        177,108
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               177,108
<CGS>                                          119,108
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  148,779
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,254
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    65
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,154
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 15,921
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,427
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              9,494
<DISCONTINUED>                                (16,373)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (1,689)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (8,568)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.47)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.47)
        

</TABLE>
Case 1:11-cv-02430-WYD-KMT Document 23 Filed 01/12/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 6
Case 1:11-cv-02430-WYD-KMT Document 23 Filed 01/12/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 6
Case 1:11-cv-02430-WYD-KMT Document 23 Filed 01/12/12 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 6
Case 1:11-cv-02430-WYD-KMT Document 23 Filed 01/12/12 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 6
Case 1:11-cv-02430-WYD-KMT Document 23 Filed 01/12/12 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 6
Case 1:11-cv-02430-WYD-KMT Document 23 Filed 01/12/12 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 6
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PETER J. HONESTO,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

GAVIN NEWSOM ; et al., *

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 18

- 16497

D.C. No. 1:17

- cv

- 00467

- LJO

- EPG

MEMORANDUM * *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Lawrence J. O ’ Neill, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 11, 2019 * * *

Before: CANBY, GRABER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Peter J. Honesto appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal claims.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We rev iew de novo. Wilhelm v.

* Gavin Newsom has been substituted for his predecessor, Edmund G.
Brown, Jr. , a s Governor of California under Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2).

** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

* ** The panel unanimously conc ludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

JUN 13 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2

Rotman , 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A )

Barren v. Harrington , 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B )(ii)). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Honesto’s conditions

- of

- confinement

claim against defendants Schwarzenegger, Hartley, and Adams in their individual

capacities because it would not have been clear to every reasonable official that

housing Honesto in prisons in the Central Valley, where Valley Fever is endemic,

was unlawful under the c ircumstances. See Ashcroft v. al

- Kidd , 563 U.S. 731, 735

(2011) (explaining two

- part test for qualified immunity); Hines v. Youseff

, 914

F.3d 1218, 12 29

- 30 (9th Cir. 2019) ( existing Valley Fever cases did not clearly

establish a “right to be free from heightened exposure to Valley Fever spores” )

.

The district court properly dismissed Honesto’s claim under Title II of the

Americans with Disabilities Act because Honesto failed to allege facts sufficient to

state a plausible claim for relief. See Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz

. , 609 F.3d

1011, 1021 (9th Cir. 2010) (elements of a claim u nder Title II ) ; see also Hebbe v.

Pliler , 627 F.3d 338, 341

- 42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are to be

construed liberally, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a

plausible claim for relief)

.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief. Se e Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009)

.3

AFFIRMED.
Case 1:11-cv-02544-MSK-KLM   Document 50-1   Filed 05/09/14   USDC Colorado   Page 1 of 17

Case 1:11-cv-02544-MSK-KLM   Document 50-1   Filed 05/09/14   USDC Colorado   Page 2 of 17

Case 1:11-cv-02544-MSK-KLM   Document 50-1   Filed 05/09/14   USDC Colorado   Page 3 of 17

Case 1:11-cv-02544-MSK-KLM   Document 50-1   Filed 05/09/14   USDC Colorado   Page 4 of 17

Case 1:11-cv-02544-MSK-KLM   Document 50-1   Filed 05/09/14   USDC Colorado   Page 5 of 17

Case 1:11-cv-02544-MSK-KLM   Document 50-1   Filed 05/09/14   USDC Colorado   Page 6 of 17

Case 1:11-cv-02544-MSK-KLM   Document 50-1   Filed 05/09/14   USDC Colorado   Page 7 of 17

Case 1:11-cv-02544-MSK-KLM   Document 50-1   Filed 05/09/14   USDC Colorado   Page 8 of 17

Case 1:11-cv-02544-MSK-KLM   Document 50-1   Filed 05/09/14   USDC Colorado   Page 9 of 17

Case 1:11-cv-02544-MSK-KLM   Document 50-1   Filed 05/09/14   USDC Colorado   Page 10 of 17

Case 1:11-cv-02544-MSK-KLM   Document 50-1   Filed 05/09/14   USDC Colorado   Page 11 of 17

Case 1:11-cv-02544-MSK-KLM   Document 50-1   Filed 05/09/14   USDC Colorado   Page 12 of 17

Case 1:11-cv-02544-MSK-KLM   Document 50-1   Filed 05/09/14   USDC Colorado   Page 13 of 17

Case 1:11-cv-02544-MSK-KLM   Document 50-1   Filed 05/09/14   USDC Colorado   Page 14 of 17

Case 1:11-cv-02544-MSK-KLM   Document 50-1   Filed 05/09/14   USDC Colorado   Page 15 of 17

Case 1:11-cv-02544-MSK-KLM   Document 50-1   Filed 05/09/14   USDC Colorado   Page 16 of 17

Case 1:11-cv-02544-MSK-KLM   Document 50-1   Filed 05/09/14   USDC Colorado   Page 17 of 17
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

REPSONDENT

 v.

FRITZ EUSTACHE PLACIDE,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 802 MAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 21st day of January, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>   This schedule contains summary financial information
extracted from the Newport News Shipbuilding Inc. Balance Sheet
as of September 20, 1998, and the related Statement of Earnings
for the nine months ended September 20, 1998 and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-20-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      125
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                         71
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   590
<PP&E>                                           1,612
<DEPRECIATION>                                     850
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,564
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              414
<BONDS>                                            400
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                         207
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,564
<SALES>                                          1,325
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,325
<CGS>                                            1,200
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,200
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  41
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     84
<INCOME-TAX>                                        35
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 49
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        49
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.39
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.35
        



</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 21



SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT



|NAME AND STATE OR OTHER JURISDICTION OF INCORPORATION                 |  | REGISTRANTS PERCENTAGE OWNERSHIP |  
|--------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | --------------------------------- | -
|Foothill Independent Bank, a California corporation                   |  | 100                               | %
|Foothill BPC, Inc., a California corporation                          |  | 100                               | %
|Foothill Independent Statutory Trust I, a Connecticut statutory trust |  | 100                               | %



In
accordance with the instructions set forth in Paragraph (b) of Item 601 of Regulation S-K, there have been omitted those subsidiaries that, if considered in the aggregate as a single subsidiary, would not constitute a significant subsidiary as of
December 31, 2002.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A15A0671. RODNEY PETERSON v. THE STATE.

In 2007, Rodney Peterson pled guilty to multiple offenses, including

aggravated assault. He later filed a motion to vacate and set aside the judgment,

which the trial court denied. Peterson sought discretionary review of this order, but

we dismissed the application because it was not timely filed.

1 Peterson subsequently

filed a motion to correct a void sentence, which the trial court denied. Peterson filed

a notice of appeal and an application for discretionary appeal of the trial court’s order.

We dismissed both based upon his failure to raise a valid void-sentence claim.

2

Peterson then filed a motion to vacate and void illegal conviction, which the trial

court dismissed on September 17, 2014.3

 Peterson filed both a notice of appeal and

an application for discretionary appeal of the trial court’s order. We dismissed the

application for discretionary appeal based on a lack of jurisdiction.

4 We likewise must

dismiss this direct appeal based on a lack of jurisdiction.

As the Supreme Court has made clear, a post-conviction motion seeking to

vacate an allegedly void criminal conviction is not one of the established procedures

1 Peterson v. State, A12D0274 (dismissed March 2, 2012).

2 Peterson v. State, A13D0183 (dismissed Jan. 23, 2013); Peterson v. State,

A14A0255 (dismissed Oct. 8, 2013).

3 The trial court noted in its order that it had considered and denied Peterson’s

allegations in a previous motion filed in 2012. 

4 Peterson v. State, A15D0093 (dismissed October 28, 2014).

January 09, 2015
for challenging the validity of a judgment in a criminal case, and an appeal from the

trial court’s ruling on such a petition should be dismissed.

5 A claim that two

convictionsshould have been merged constitutes an attack on the convictions, not the

sentence, and an order denying or dismissing such an attack is not subject to appeal.

6

Likewise, a challenge alleging ineffective assistance of counsel does not assert a

ground upon which a conviction can be declared void.

7

 Under these circumstances,

we lack jurisdiction to consider the merits of this appeal, which is hereby

DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

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.

5 See Roberts v. State, 286 Ga. 532 (690 SE2d 150) (2010); Harper v. State,

286 Ga. 216, 218 (1) (686 SE2d 786) (2009). 

6

 See Williams v. State, 287 Ga. 192, 193-194 (695 SE2d 244) (2010). 

7

 See Brown v. State, 297 Ga. App. 738 (678 SE2d 172) (2009). 

01/09/2015
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 Annual Report of Integral Systems, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the twelve months ended September 30,
2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, William M. Bambarger, the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to and for purposes of 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        
|------------------------
|/s/ WILLIAM M. BAMBARGER
|William M. Bambarger    
|Chief Financial Officer 
|Date: December 12, 2007
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Steven Cote, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Goodman, J.), rendered May 22, 1985, convicting him of murder in the second degree and robbery in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence and statements made by him to law enforcement authorities.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that statements he made were the product of an unlawful police detention is without merit. The defendant, whose van was parked in a shopping plaza containing a drugstore, aroused police suspicion when two police officers observed, from a distance of "two parking spaces” away, that he resembled police composite drawings of a suspect in numerous area drugstore robberies. A check of the van’s license plates revealed that they had been issued to a red Pontiac, which the police subsequently discovered to also be the property of the defendant. These factors gave the police officers reasonable suspicion supporting their request that the defendant drive his vehicle over to the side of the road and supporting their reasonable inquiry *(see, People v Ingle,*36 NY2d 413; *see also, People v Prochilo,*41 NY2d 759).

We find that in light of the totality of the surrounding circumstances, the inculpatory statements made by the defendant after about an hour of police questioning were voluntary *(see, People v Anderson,*42 NY2d 35; *People v Woods,*141 AD2d 588). Moreover, the defendant’s previous request for counsel made in connection with unrelated charges pending in *920the State of North Carolina, did not preclude him from voluntarily waiving his right to counsel with respect to the new charges *(see, People v Bing,*146 AD2d 178, *affd*76 NY2d 331). Accordingly, the Nassau County police officers were entitled to question the defendant after he voluntarily waived his right to counsel following the administration of the *Miranda*warnings *(see, People v Bing, supra).*

Finally, since the defendant pleaded guilty with the understanding that he would receive the sentence which was thereafter actually imposed, he cannot assert the sentence was excessive *(see, People v Kazepis,*101 AD2d 816).

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Sullivan, J. P., Harwood, Balletta and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1435 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1435

    To amend the Energy Policy and Conservation Act to increase the 
  capacity of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 21, 2007

  Mr. Cochran introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the Energy Policy and Conservation Act to increase the 
  capacity of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. INCREASE IN CAPACITY OF STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE.

    (a) Strategic Petroleum Reserve.--
            (1) Policy.--Section 151(b) of the Energy Policy and 
        Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6231(b)) is amended by striking ``1 
        billion'' and inserting ``1,500,000,000''.
            (2) Creation.--Section 154(a) of the Energy Policy and 
        Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6234(a)) is amended by striking ``1 
        billion'' and inserting ``1,500,000,000''.
    (b) Filling Strategic Petroleum Reserve to Capacity.--Section 
301(e) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 6240 note; Public 
Law 109-58) is amended by striking ``1,000,000,000-barrel'' and 
inserting ``1,500,000,000-barrel''.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 13**

 

**SECTION 906CERTIFICATIONS**

**Pursuant to 18****U.S.C. § 1350**

 

I, Gail Patricia Kelly, certify that the AnnualReport on Form 20-F for the year ended 30 September 2010 of WestpacBanking Corporation (the “Company”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the informationcontained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
|   | Date:  3 November 2010                                         |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                |
|   |                                                                |
|   | /s/  Gail Patricia Kelly                                            |
|   | Gail  Patricia KellyManaging  Director and  Chief Executive Officer |

 

I, Philip Matthew Coffey, certify that the AnnualReport on Form 20-F for the year ended 30 September 2010 of WestpacBanking Corporation (the “Company”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the informationcontained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
|   | Date:  3 November 2010                    |
|--------|------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                           |
|   |                                           |
|   | /s/  Philip Matthew Coffey                     |
|   | Philip  Matthew CoffeyChief  Financial Officer |

 

----
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1436 

To amend the Agricultural Adjustment Act to add clementines to the list 

of fruits and vegetables subject to minimum quality import requirements 

issued by the Secretary of Agriculture. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 21, 2007 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mrs. BOXER) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 

A BILL 

To amend the Agricultural Adjustment Act to add 

clementines to the list of fruits and vegetables subject 

to minimum quality import requirements issued by the 

Secretary of Agriculture. 

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

3 SECTION 1. QUALITY REQUIREMENTS FOR CLEMENTINES. 

4 Section 8e(a) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act (7 

5 U.S.C. 608e–1(a)), reenacted with amendments by the Ag6 ricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, is amended 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

•S 1436 IS

1 in the matter preceding the first proviso in the first sen2 tence by inserting ‘‘clementines,’’ after ‘‘nectarines,’’. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
## In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 13

- 00220

- CR

DONNIE JACKSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 196th District Court

Hunt County, Texas

Trial Court No. 28,828

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter2 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION

Donnie Jackson, appellant, has filed with thi s Court a motion to dismiss his appeal. The

motion was signed by both Jackson and his counsel in compliance with Rule 42.2(a) of the Texas

Rules of Appellate Procedure. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.2(a). As authorized by Rule 42.2(a), we

grant the motion. See id

.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

Jack Carter

Justice

Date Submitted: October 16, 2013

Date Decided: October 17, 2013

Do Not Publish
Case 1:11-cv-01945-RBJ-KLM Document 29 Filed 03/14/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT
23.1








CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM














Board of
Directors


Giga-tronics
Incorporated


San
Ramon, California














We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements Nos.
333-45476, 333-34719, 333-48889, 333-39403, 333-69688 and 333-135578 on Form S-8
of Giga-tronics Incorporated of our report dated May 14, 2009, relating to our
audit of the consolidated financial statements, which report appears elsewhere
in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Giga-tronics Incorporated for the year
ended March 28, 2009.











/s/
Perry-Smith LLP








San
Francisco, California


May 14,
2009