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

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           1,176
<SECURITIES>                                     3,357
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,889<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     12,235
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                21,422
<PP&E>                                          38,580
<DEPRECIATION>                                  20,036
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  40,214
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,981
<BONDS>                                          3,051
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            41
<OTHER-SE>                                      30,495
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    40,214
<SALES>                                          8,504
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,504
<CGS>                                            5,466
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,898
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 102
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    794
<INCOME-TAX>                                       278
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                516
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       516
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.13
<FN>
<F1>note: receivables shown net of allowance of 357
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
Order issued August 30, 2022

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-21-00162-CV

———————————

ONEIDA JONES, Appellant

V.

ALLSTATE VEHICLE AND PROPERTY INSURANCE COMPANY,

Appellee

On Appeal from the 281st District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2017-57201

MEMORANDUM ORDER

The clerk’s record was filed May 13, 2021. Our review has determined that 

there may be a relevant item(s) omitted from the clerk’s record. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 34.5(c). The record does not contain any amended answer(s) filed by Appellee

in response to Appellant’s First Amended Petition.
The Harris County District Clerk is directed to file a supplemental clerk’s 

record on or before 14 days from the date of this order, containing any amended 

answers filed by Appellee, Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company, to 

Appellant, Oneida Jones’s First Amended Petition.

If the omitted item is not part of the case file, the district clerk is directed to 

file a supplemental clerk’s record containing a certified statement that the omitted 

item is not a part of the case file.

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Kelly, Goodman, and Guerra.

Justice Goodman dissenting without opinion.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C., SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Hickory Tech Corporation on Form 10-Qfor the period ending March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John W. Finke, ChiefExecutive Officer of HickoryTech, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:

 

(1)        The Report fully complies with the requirementsof section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)        The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of HickoryTech.

 

 
| /s/ John W. Finke                      |   |
|----------------------------------------|--------|
| John W. Finke                          |   |
| President and Chief  Executive Officer |   |
| May 1, 2008                       |   |

 

----
UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18

- 2432

RONALD COLLINS, JR. , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.

KRISTEN KELLER , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia , at Beckley

. Irene C. Berger , District Judge. ( 5:17

- cv

- 01330 )

Submitted : January 22, 2019 Decided: January 24, 2019

Before MOTZ , KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Ronald Collins, Jr. , Appellant Pro Se. Kevin John Robinson , PULLIN, FOWLER, FLANAGAN, BROWN & POE, PLLC , Beckley, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Ronald Collins, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his complaint filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012). We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5 ), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 2 0 5, 2 1 4 ( 2007 ).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on October 1, 2018 . The notice of appeal was filed on November 15, 2018

. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(d). Because

Collins failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is cour t and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya

Civil Action No. 11–cv–02712–REB–KMT

LEROY DAMASIO FRESQUEZ,

Plaintiff,

v. 

SHERIFF TED MINKS, 

MICHAEL FISH, Detention Service Manager,

JOHN DOE (CAPTAIN), March 5, 2010,

LT. MARTINALLI,

LT. G. GITTIN,

LT. J. LUCAS,

ADMINISTRATIVE SGT. RENFRO,

SGT. TROY BETKA,

SGT. SCOTT HAPP,

SGT. STEVEN WYGANT,

OFFICER KATHRINE FEROE,

DEPUTY SHERIFF CRUMBAKER,

DEPUTY SHERIFF RYAN VIERS,

DEPUTY SHERIFF DUSTIN DYELING,

DEPUTY SHERIFF ANTHONY KOTRIS,

DEPUTY SHERIFF DONALD SPRINGFIELD,

DEPUTY SHERIFF HOLLEY,

DEPUTY SHERIFF JAMES GELEUDE,

DEPUTY SHERIFF JASON RICHARDSON,

DEPUTY SHERIFF REID PERRY,

DEPUTY SHERIFF WILLIAM BOHM,

DEPUTY SHERIFF ERIK BOUGHAM,

DEPUTY SHERIFF HERBERT LONGSHORE,

DEPUTY SHERIFF #1958 (Name Unknown),

COUNSELOR MIKE COLLINS,

COUNSELOR SUPERVISOR DEBRA ELUDO,

CORRECTIONAL HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT,

CLAUDIA VAN BUREN/HSA,

RAYMOND HERR, Responsible Physician,

TRACY HAINES, LPN, and

Case 1:11-cv-02712-REB-KMT Document 43 Filed 04/18/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

KATHERINE BECERRA, RN,

Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER

ORDER ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KATHLEEN M. TAFOYA

Plaintiff’s “Motion” (Doc. No. 41, filed Apr. 17, 2012), which seeks a copy of his Second

Amended Prisoner Complaint, is GRANTED. In the court’s prior Minute Order (Doc. No. 35,

filed Apr. 9, 2012), the court erroneously directed the clerk to mail Plaintiff a copy of his

Amended Prisoner Complaint (Doc. No. 9), rather than the Second Amended Prisoner Complaint

(Doc. No. 17) as requested. Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is directed to mail Plaintiff a copy

of his Second Amended Prisoner Complaint (Doc. No. 17). Plaintiff is again advised that the

court will not provide him with additional copies of court filings in the future.

Dated: April 18, 2012

Case 1:11-cv-02712-REB-KMT Document 43 Filed 04/18/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HOWARD COCHRAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

KUBLER, Nurse at Lewis,

Defendant

- Appellee. No. 20

- 15434

D.C. No. 2:18

- cv

- 00688

- MTL

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona Michael T. Liburdi, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 2 , 2020 * *

Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

Arizona state prisoner Howard Cochran appeals pro se from the district

cou rt’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate

indifference to his serious medical needs

. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung , 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir

.

* 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

DEC 16 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 20

- 1 5434

2004). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Cochran

failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant Kubler

was deliberately indifferent to Cochran’s back pain

. See id. at 1057

- 60 ( a prison

official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of and disregards an

excessive risk to inmate health ; medical malpractice, negligence, or a difference of

opini on concerning the course of treatment does not amount to deliberate

indifference ) ; see also McGuckin v. Smith , 974 F.2d 1050, 1060 (9th Cir. 1992),

overruled on other grounds by WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller , 104 F.3d 1133 (1997)

(en banc) (“A finding that the defendant’s neglect of a prisoner’s condition was an

‘isolated occurrence,’ or an ‘isolated exception,’ to the defendant’s overall

treatment of the prisoner ordinarily mitigates against a finding of deliberate

indifference.” (in ternal citations omitted))

.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Cochran’s

complaint without leave to amend because amendment would have been futile.

See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. , 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir.

201 1) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that dismissal without leave

to amend is proper when amendment would be futile)

.

We do not consider arguments or allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).3 20

- 1 5434

Cochran’s motion to amend and supplement (Docket Entry No. 6) is denied.

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
the Condensed Statement of Income and the Condensed Statement of
Financial Position and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000766916
<NAME> AMOCO COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                             220
<SECURITIES>                                       777
<RECEIVABLES>                                     4261
<ALLOWANCES>                                        15
<INVENTORY>                                       1019
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  6894
<PP&E>                                           44456
<DEPRECIATION>                                   24519
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   29809
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             5100
<BONDS>                                           2076
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       13131
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     29809
<SALES>                                           7153
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  8074
<CGS>                                             5229
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     5229
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  1507
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  36
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    769
<INCOME-TAX>                                       213
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                556
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       556
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           5,456
<SECURITIES>                                    24,541
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,288
<ALLOWANCES>                                       125
<INVENTORY>                                      4,660
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                41,166
<PP&E>                                           5,141
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,824
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  54,665
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,123
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        37,496
<OTHER-SE>                                      13,145
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    54,665
<SALES>                                         24,586
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                24,586
<CGS>                                           11,125
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,125
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,242
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,357
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,885
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,885
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.51
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.51
        



</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Lancer Corporation (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the UnitedStates Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Christopher D. Hughes, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)                                  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(2)                                  Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| May 10, 2005 | /s/  CHRISTOPHER D. HUGHES |                     |
|--------------|----------------------------|--------------------------|
|         |                       | Christopher  D. Hughes,  |
|         |                       | Chief  Executive Officer |
|              |                            |                          |  |

 

----
389 A.2d 189

#### Wendekier v. Wendekier, Appellant.

Submitted November 8, 1976.

John W. Taylor, and Myers, Taylor & Peduzzi, for appellant;

Dino S. Persio, for appellee.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Decree affirmed. Having made an independent study of the entire record, we are of *561the opinion that the court below properly granted a decree in divorce in this case.

WATKINS, former P. J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                               JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                 MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                               540
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     19,632
<ALLOWANCES>                                       2,195
<INVENTORY>                                       11,235
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  29,606
<PP&E>                                             4,179
<DEPRECIATION>                                         0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    40,501
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             15,882
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                              53
<OTHER-SE>                                         3,627
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      40,501
<SALES>                                           13,599
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  13,599
<CGS>                                              6,515
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     12,800
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     135
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   496
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      406
<INCOME-TAX>                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  406
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                         406
<EPS-BASIC>                                         0.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0.08



</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 23.    Consent of Experts and Counsel







Beckstead and Watts, LLP
Certified Public Accountants
                                           3340 Wynn Road, Suite B
                                               Las Vegas, NV 89102
                                                      702.257.1984
                                                702.362.0540 (fax)


To Whom It May Concern:

We  have  issued our report dated February 26, 2003,  accompanying
the  financial statements of Ginseng Forest, Inc. on Form 1  0-KSB
for  the  year  ended  December 31, 2002 and  for  the  period  of
February  26, 2003 (inception date) through December 31, 2002.  We
hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said report on
the Annual Report of Ginseng Forest, Inc. on Form 10-KSB.

Signed,

/s/ Beckstead and Watts LLP
------------------------------

February 26, 2003
#### Green, Appellant, *v.*Sumby.

*Practice, Supreme Court*— Quashing *appeal*— *Paper boohs*— *Statement of question involved*— Violation *of Buie 84.*

Where on an appeal to the Supreme Court the statement of the question involved in appellant’s paper book consisted of thirty lines covering a whole page, in violation of Supreme Court Rule 34, the appeal was quashed.

Argued Jan. 12,1915.

Appeal, No. 244, Jan. T., 1914, from decree of C. P. No. 8, Philadelphia Co., Sept. T., 1913, No. 805, in equity, dismissing bill in equity to set aside deeds in case of Charles H. Green v. Elbert A. Sumby.

Before Brown, C. J., Mestrezat, Elkin, Stewart and Frazer, JJ.

Appeal quashed.

Bill in equity to set aside two conveyances. Before Ferguson, J.

The lower court dismissed the bill. Plaintiff appealed.

*121February 8, 1915:

*John W. Parks,*for appellant.

*Clifton Maloney,*with him *Thomas O. Haydock, Jr.,*for appellee.

Per Curiam,

If there were any merit in this appeal, the appellant would suffer for counsel’s gross violation of rule 34, relating to the statement of the question or questions involved. The violation of the rule in the present case consists in devoting thirty lines, covering a whole page, to what could have been intelligently stated in less than the prescribed limit. The appeal must be quashed: Duffee v. Bankers’ Surety Company, 247 Pa. 17.

Appeal quashed.
-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Chief Judge Wiley Y. Daniel

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02708-WYD-KLM

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

NANCY D. BERRYMAN;

THE TEMPLE OF THE UNVEILED GOD;

THE OFFICE OF THE OVERSEER OF DEDICATION TO ENLIGHTENMENT; and

HER SUCCESSORS, A CORPORATION SOLE,

Defendants.

AMENDED ORDER OF REFERENCE TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) through (C), Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a) and (b),

and D.C.COLO.LCivR 72.1C, United States Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix is

designated to conduct proceedings in this civil action as follows:

(X) Convene a scheduling conference under Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b) and enter a

scheduling order meeting the requirements of D.C.COLO.LCivR 16.2.

(X) Conduct such status conferences and issue such orders necessary for

compliance with the scheduling order, including amendments or

modifications of the scheduling order upon a showing of good cause.

(X) Convene such settlement conferences and directly related procedures as

may facilitate resolution of this case.

(X) Hear and determine pretrial matters, including discovery and other

non-dispositive motions.

Case 1:11-cv-02708-WYD-KLM Document 9 Filed 11/18/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
-2-

(X) Conduct hearings, including evidentiary hearings, and submit proposed

findings of fact and recommendations for rulings on dispositive motions.

(X) Conduct a pretrial conference and enter a pretrial order.

IT IS ORDERED that this civil action is referred to the named magistrate judge to

proceed according to the designations marked (X) above. It is further

ORDERED that parties and counsel shall be familiar and comply with the above

judge’s requirements found at www.cod.uscourts.gov.

Dated: November 18, 2011.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Wiley Y. Daniel 

WILEY Y. DANIEL,

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-02708-WYD-KLM Document 9 Filed 11/18/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2