alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 27


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Balance Sheet at September 30, 1997 (unaudited) and the
Consolidated Statement of Operations for the Nine Months Ended September 30,
1997 (unaudited) and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000921112
<NAME> LIBERTY PROPERTY TRUST
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          24,097
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,212
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,195
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                38,309
<PP&E>                                       1,770,599
<DEPRECIATION>                                 142,837
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,735,199
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           38,253
<BONDS>                                        851,875
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    125,000
<COMMON>                                            43
<OTHER-SE>                                     605,218
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,735,199
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               160,104
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   42,146
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                36,389
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              40,269
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 41,300
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             41,300
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    35,988
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .93
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .99
        

</TABLE>
NO. 07-01-0057-CR

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL D

	FEBRUARY 28__, 2001

	______________________________

	JACQUELINE DENISE ERVINE,

			      	Appellant

	v.

	THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

				Appellee

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 64th DISTRICT COURT OF HALE COUNTY;

	NO. A13891-0011; HON. JACK MILLER, PRESIDING

	_______________________________

Before BOYD, C.J., and QUINN, and REAVIS, J.J.

	Pending before the court is appellant’s motion to dismiss appeal.  The document is

signed by both appellant and counsel.  Furthermore, the conditions precedent to the

voluntary dismissal of an appeal, see Tex. R. App. Proc. 42.2(a), have been satisfied.  Accordingly, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal.

								Per Curiam

Do not publish.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

Ridge Natural Resources, LLC, Calvin 

Smajstrla, Christopher Hawa and Wilson 

Hawa,

 

 Appellants,

v.

Double Eagle Royalty, LP,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-17-00227-CV

Appeal from the

109th District Court

of Winkler County, Texas 

(TC# DC17-17111)

O R D E R

Pending before the Court is Appellants’ motion to enforce the stay order entered by the 

Court on December 18, 2017. The motion is GRANTED in part. The trial court is directed to stay 

all proceedings in cause number DC17-17111, styled Ridge Natural Resources, LLC, Calvin 

Smajstrla, Christopher Hawa and Wilson Hawa v. Double Eagle Royalty, LP, pending resolution 

of this appeal or further order of this Court. This stay order includes the hearing scheduled by the 

trial court for April 18, 2018. Any party seeking to take any action in the trial court related to this 

case is required to first obtain leave of this Court to do so. Appellants’ request for sanctions is 

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 16th day of April, 2018.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez and Palafox, JJ.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MONEY MAILER, LLC,

Plaintiff-counterdefendant-Appellee,

v.

WADE G. BREWER,

Defendant-counter-claimantAppellant,

 v.

MONEY MAILER FRANCHISE CORP; 

et al.,

Counter-defendantsAppellees.

No. 20-35896

D.C. No. 2:15-cv-01215-RSL

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Robert S. Lasnik, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted July 9, 2021

Seattle, Washington

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

FILED

JUL 21 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

Before: CLIFTON and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and CALDWELL,** District 

Judge.

Wade Brewer appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment on his 

counterclaims in Money Mailer, LLC’s favor. We have jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1291. Reviewing de novo,1 KST Data, Inc. v. DXC Tech. Co., 980 F.3d 709, 713 

(9th Cir. 2020), we affirm. 

Brewer does not challenge the district court’s determination that he limited 

his relief to restitution. Brewer is only entitled to restitution if Money Mailer was

unjustly enriched by its allegedly illegal conduct. See Ehsani v. McCullough Fam. 

P’ship, 159 P.3d 407, 411 (Wash. 2007). The record reflects that Money Mailer 

was not enriched. The undisputed evidence shows that Money Mailer incurred 

third-party costs of over $3.4 million for Brewer’s franchise, while Brewer only 

paid Money Mailer a little over $2.5 million. What Brewer’s payments were

credited to does not matter because it does not change the conclusion that Money 

Mailer was not enriched. Under his election of remedy, Brewer is unable to prove 

damages for any of his claims, including his claim under Washington’s Consumer 

** The Honorable Karen K. Caldwell, United States District Judge for the Eastern 

District of Kentucky, sitting by designation.

1 Our review is de novo and not for an abuse of discretion because the appeal is of 

an order granting summary judgment and not of an order denying a motion for 

equitable relief or an order of restitution. Compare KST Data, 980 F.3d at 713, 

with Teutscher v. Woodson, 835 F.3d 936, 942 (9th Cir. 2016); Molski v. Foley 

Estates Vineyard & Winery, LLC, 531 F.3d 1043, 1046 (9th Cir. 2008). 
3

Protection Act. The undisputed evidence offered by Money Mailer in support of 

the amount that it paid out on behalf of Brewer was sufficient to support the

proposition that it was not enriched. Brewer failed to contest that evidence in any 

meaningful fashion, despite having an opportunity to do so. Brewer’s argument, 

made for the first time in his reply brief, that Carr’s declaration did not explicitly 

state that Money Mailer actually paid third parties, is not persuasive. The 

argument was waived in any event. See United States v. Gianelli, 543 F.3d 1178, 

1184 n.6 (9th Cir. 2008). Summary judgment in Money Mailer’s favor was proper. 

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          54,771
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             236
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                         51,841
<ALLOWANCE>                                      2,497
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 234,407
<DEPOSITS>                                     124,284
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             21,040
<LONG-TERM>                                     37,575
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            51
<OTHER-SE>                                      51,457
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 234,407
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  2,952
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  270
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 3,222
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               1,847
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,116
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            1,106
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    1,413
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 17,140
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,358
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       5,358
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,108
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.62
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.58
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.97
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,247
<LOANS-PAST>                                     1,227
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,438
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      354
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                2,497
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             2,497
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

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

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

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GAMAL MOUSTAFA IBRAHIM,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 12-70673

Agency No. A095-697-157

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 24, 2013** 

Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Gamal Moustafa Ibrahim, a native and citizen of Egypt, petitions for review

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of

removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have

FILED

SEP 30 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 12-70673

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the

agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility

determinations created by the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034,

1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination

based on Ibrahim’s inconsistent testimony regarding when he signed the online

petition that he alleges caused police to question his son. See id. at 1046-47

(“Although inconsistencies no longer need to go to the heart of the petitioner’s

claim, when an inconsistency is at the heart of the claim it doubtless is of great

weight.”); Don v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738, 741-42 (9th Cir. 2007) (upholding an

adverse credibility finding where inconsistent evidence was submitted regarding a

crucial date upon which the alien predicated his claim). We reject Ibrahim’s

contention that he was not given an opportunity to explain the inconsistency. See

Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1090 (9th Cir. 2011). Substantial evidence also

supports the agency’s finding that Ibrahim’s lack of candor regarding his

declaration reflected negatively on his credibility. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1044

(under the REAL ID Act, an immigration judge may rely on any relevant factor in

assessing the “totality of the circumstances”). In the absence of credible testimony,
3 12-70673

Ibrahim’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft,

348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Finally, Ibrahim’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same

testimony found not credible, and he does not point to any other evidence that

shows it is more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to Egypt. See id.

at 1156-57.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
**
**Exhibit 13.2**

**Certification by the Principal Financial Officer**

**Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

I, In Joon Hwang, Chief Financial Officer of LINE Corporation (the “Company”), hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge: 

 
 • 
the Company’s annual report on Form 20-F for the fiscal yearended December 31, 2019, as previously amended by Amendment No. 1 on Form 20-F/A and as further amended by Amendment No. 2 on Form 20-F/A (the“Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

 
 • 
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company for the periods presented therein. 

Date: September 28, 2020 

 

By:
 
/s/ In Joon Hwang
 
Name: In Joon Hwang
 
Title: Chief Financial Officer
**
No. 13,719.

#### Russell et al. *v.*Senior.

*Survey.*— Title *to Beal Estate.*— New *Trial as of Bight.*— A survey had under the provisions of section 5955, B. S. 1881, does not determine the title to real estate, and a party is not entitled to a new trial as of right under section 1064, B. S. 1881.

From the Clinton Circuit Court.

*J. Claybaugh*and *G. Sexson,*for appellants.

*T. H. Palmer*and *W. F. Palmer,*for appellee.

Olds, J.

This was an appeal taken from a survey under the provisions of section 5955, R. S. 1881. Trial had and a resurvey ordered. There was a resurvey, and the resurvey approved by the court. Within one year from the date of the judgment of the court approving the survey, the appellants filed a bond for costs, and moved the court for a new trial as of right, under section 1064, R. S. 1881, which motion was overruled, and exceptions reserved, and appellants prosecute this appeal and assign as error the overruling of the motion for new trial.

It is contended by counsel for appellants thát the survey settled the title to disputed real estate. In this they are in error.

In the case of *Cleveland*v. *Obenchain,*107 Ind. 591, this court says : *“A*land-owner who submits to a survey does not by so doing lose any of his land. In submitting to a survey he does not surrender any valid title that he may have, no matter how it may have been acquired. In not objecting to a survey he does not put himself in the position of surrendering his land, or any part of it.”

In the case of *Riggs*v. *Riley,*113 Ind. 208, it was held that a survey establishing a line between adjoining landowners will not defeat a title previously perfected by adverse *521possession for more than twenty years, nor revive the right of the original owner. See *Voltz*v. *Newbert,*17 Ind. 187. All that a survey does is to establish the line, and it does not ■determine the title to the real estate. It is proper to introduce evidence of possession, and of other facts, to aid in ■ arriving at the true line and boundary, but not for the purpose of settling the title. The authorities we have cited are decisive of the question in this case. There was no error in •overruling the motion for a new trial.

Filed April 27, 1889

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
584 A.2d 252

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ANTHONY D. THOMAS.

June 11, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
Exhibit 32.2

         Certification of Chief Financial Officer of FirstBank NW Corp.
           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 accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of
FirstBank NW Corp. ("the Company") for the year ended March 31, 2006 (the
"Report"), I, Clyde E. Conklin, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby
certify pursuant to 19 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

          o    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a)
               and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and

          o    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
               material respects, the Company's financial condition and results
               of operations.


                                              /s/ LARRY K. MOXLEY
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              Larry K. Moxley
                                              Executive Vice President and Chief
                                              Financial Officer


Dated:  July 27, 2006
585 A.2d 363

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. MARK C. HARVEY.

September 4, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
#### STATE ex rel. Peter W. GONSOULIN, II v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2009-KH-2800.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 14, 2011.

In re Gonsoulin II, Peter W.; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 427894; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 KW 1787.

Denied. Result correct.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i at e f orpubl i c at i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane lunani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T DA VI D MUN GA I NJ E NG A, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , Jr ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 08- 74044 A ge nc yN o. A 091- 738- 632 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r atio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d June 10, 2013 ** B efo re: H A W K IN S , M cK E O W N , an dB E R Z O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. D avi d M unga iN

j e nga , ana t i ve and c i t i z e n of K e ny a , pe t i t i ons f

orr e vi e w of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ (“ B IA ”) order di sm i ss i ng hi s app ea lfr om an i m m i gr a t i on j udge ’ s de c i s i on de ny i ng hi s m ot i on t o r e ope n r e m ova lpr oc e e di ngs conduct ed i n absent i a. W e have j uri sdi ct i on un der 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2. W e r evi ew 

# FI LED JU N 18 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2 08- 74044

f orabus e of

di s c r e t i on the de ni a lof am ot i on t o r e ope n. N

ajm ab ad iv. H

older , 597 F . 3 d9 8 3 , 9 8 6 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 1 0 ) . We d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. T h e B I A d idn o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in d e n y in g N je n g a ’s u n tim e lym o tio n to re op en because he fa i l ed t o est abl i sh m at er i alevi dence of changed ci rc um st ance s in K e n y a . See 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 3 ( b ) ( 4 ) ( i) ; N ajm abadi , 59 7 F . 3dat99 0 (a p e titio n e r ’s e v id e n c e la c k s th e r e qu ir e dm ate r ia lityw h e r e it s im p lyr e c o u n ts g e n e r a liz e dc o n d itio n s th at f a il to d e m o n s tr ate “th at h e rp r e d ic am e n t is ap p r e c iab ly di ff er entfr om the dang er s f ac ed by her f

el l ow ci t i ze ns”) . P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. AP-77,060

BRANDON DANIEL, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

ON DIRECT APPEAL FROM AN ORDER REMOVING THE OFFICE OF

CAPITAL WRITS AS HABEAS COUNSEL

FILED IN CAUSE NO. D-1-DC-12-201718 IN THE 403 DISTRICT COURT

RD

TRAVIS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

This is a direct appeal of the trial court’s order removing the Office of Capital Writs

as writ counsel in Cause No. D-1-DC-12-201718 filed in the 403 District Court of Travis

rd

County, styled The State of Texas v. Brandon Daniel. Because the Office of Capital Writs

has been reinstated as writ counsel for appellant, the appeal is moot and is, therefore,

dismissed.

Do not publish

Delivered: October 28, 2015
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 885 

To extend the waiver of limitations with respect to excluding from gross 

income amounts received by wrongfully incarcerated individuals. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 6, 2017 

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas (for himself and Mr. LARSON of Connecticut) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways 

and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the waiver of limitations with respect to excluding 

from gross income amounts received by wrongfully incarcerated individuals. 

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

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF WAIVER OF LIMITATIONS WITH 

4 RESPECT TO EXCLUDING FROM GROSS IN5 COME AMOUNTS RECEIVED BY WRONGFULLY 

6 INCARCERATED INDIVIDUALS. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 304(d) of the Protecting 

8 Americans from Tax Hikes Act of 2015 (26 U.S.C. 139F 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 885 IH

1 note) is amended by striking ‘‘1-year’’ and inserting ‘‘2- 

2 year’’. 

3 (b) TECHNICAL CORRECTION.—Section 304(d) of 

4 such Act (26 U.S.C. 139F note) is amended by striking 

5 ‘‘application of this Act’’ and inserting ‘‘application of this 

6 section’’. 

7 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

8 this section shall take effect as if included in section 304 

9 of the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act of 2015. 

Æ 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Marvin D. ERVIN.

No. 2009-K-0958.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 19, 2010.

In re Ervin, Marvin D.; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. B, No. 462-277; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2008-KA-1078.

Denied.