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

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>             1

<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>          3 MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>          DEC-31-99
<PERIOD-START>         JUL-01-99
<PERIOD-END>         SEPT-30-99
<CASH>          $  51,728
<SECURITIES>          $       0
<RECEIVABLES>          $  18,422
<ALLOWANCES>          $   2,995
<INVENTORY>          $   8,992
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              $ 482,534
<PP&E>                        $ 286,670
<DEPRECIATION>                $  16,717
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                $1,174,284
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         $  288,096
<BONDS>                       $1,893,420
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         $        0
<PREFERRED>                   $        0
<COMMON>                      $      420
<OTHER-SE>                    $(1,006,811)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  $ 1,174,285
<SALES>                       $     9,947
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              $     9,947
<CGS>                         $    (9,450)
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 $    (9,450)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              $         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>              $     2,995
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            $    55,919
<INCOME-PRETAX>               $  (208,274)
<INCOME-TAX>                  $         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           $  (208,274)
<DISCONTINUED>                $         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>               $         0
<CHANGES>                     $         0
<NET-INCOME>                  $  (208,274)
<EPS-BASIC>                 $     (.050)
<EPS-DILUTED>                 $     (.050)


</TABLE>
#### David W. GIBSON, Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Appellee.

No. 04-1508.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 7, 2005.

Decided Feb. 10, 2005.

David W. Gibson, St. Louis, MO, pro se.

Jane Rund, U.S. Attorney’s Office, St. Louis, MO, for Defendant — Appellee.

Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

David Gibson appeals from the judgment of the district court1 upholding the Commissioner’s decision to order repayment of social security benefits he received while imprisoned on a felony charge. For reversal, Gibson contends that the administrative law judge (ALJ) erred in refusing to waive recovery of the overpayment. In particular, Gibson argues he was “without fault” in receiving the overpayment, within the meaning of 20 C.F.R. § 404.506 (2004), which prohibits recovery of an overpayment that “has been made to an individual who is without fault if adjustment or recovery would either defeat the purpose of title II of the Act, or be against equity and good conscience.” Concluding that the ALJ’s decision was supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole, *see Harris v. Barnhart,*856 F.3d 926, 928 (8th Cir.2004), we affirm.

*253Initially, we note that when Gibson was sentenced on his felony charge in 1992, the district court2 ordered him to “partially pay for his incarceration costs by signing over his monthly Social Security disability checks to the Bureau of Prisons during his period of incarceration.” If Gibson had followed that order, the Social Security Administration (SSA) would have received notice that Gibson was not entitled to receive the checks. Gibson argues that his sentencing was “traumatic,” the judge’s order “didn’t register,” he did not think about the checks because they were being directly deposited into his checking account, and no one provided paperwork for him to follow through with the order.

The ALJ found that although Gibson had experienced stress, he remained mentally capable of taking care of his financial interests. The ALJ noted that Gibson continued to make payments on commercial property he owned while incarcerated, and that Gibson spent the $10,000 he had remaining even after he was specifically advised by the SSA that he had been overpaid. We find that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s finding that Gibson was not without fault because he “accepted a payment he knew or could have been expected to know was incorrect.” *See*20 C.F.R. § 404.507(a) (2004); *Gregg v. Barnhart,*354 F.3d 710, 714 (8th Cir. 2003) (if ALJ explicitly discredits claimant, and gives good reasons for doing so, this court normally defers to credibility findings).

Further, the record supports the overpayment amount of $45,040.30 calculated by the ALJ. Accordingly, we affirm.

1

. The Honorable Charles A. Shaw, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Lewis M. Blanton, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.

2

. The Honorable Dean Whipple, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
#### The State *v.*M’Clure.

The disinterment of a corpse is indictable, if it be done without either the consent of the deceased given in his life-time, or of his near relations given subsequently to his death.

The indictment, in such case, need not allege the disinterment to be unlawful.

Tuesday, *August*22.

ERROR to the *Marion*Circuit Court.

Blackford, J.

Indictment for disinterring a corpse. The indictment charges that the defendant, on, &c., at, &c., did *329then and there remove the dead body and corpse’of one *Polly White,*from interment in a public burying ground, in which she had been then and there interred, without having obtained the consent therefor of the said *Polly*in her- life-time, nor of her near relations since her death, contrary to the form of the statute, &c.

*W. Quarles,*for the state.

*J, Morrison,*for the defendant.

This indictment, on the defendant’s motion, was quashed.

The defendant contends, that the indictment should have averred that the disinterment was without the consent of the near relations of the deceased, given *before*her death; but the objection is without foundation. We consider the disinterment to be indictable, if it was done without the consent of the deceased given in her life-time, or of her near relatives given *subsequently*to her death. Rev. Code, 1831, p. 188 (1).

The *defendant*further contends, that the indictment should have alleged the disinterment to be unlawful; but the term 44 unlawful” is not used in the statute, and there could be no reason for inserting it in the indictment. 1 Chitt. Crim. Law, 241.

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, &c.

(1)

 Accord. Rev, Stat, 1838, p. 213.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Jose Antonio Morales-Ramirez,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CR 98-00800-001-PHX-PGR

DETENTION ORDER

On April 14, 2006, defendant Jose Antonio Morales-Ramirez appeared before this Court

on a petition for revocation of supervised release. The Court considered the information

provided to the Court, and the arguments of counsel in determining whether the defendant

should be released on conditions set by the Court.

The Court finds that the defendant, having previously been convicted and placed on

supervised release, and having appeared before the Court in connection with a petition to revoke

his supervised release, has failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that he is not

likely to flee or pose a danger to the safety of the community if released pursuant to Rule 46(d),

and Rule 32.1(a)(6), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and 18 U.S.C. § 3143.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant be detained pending further proceedings.

DATED this 18th day of April, 2006.

Case 2:98-cr-00800-PGR Document 32 Filed 04/19/06 Page 1 of 1
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"NEEMO 19 Crew Shares Undersea Experiences","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"hS16OS1ITg\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/missions\/analog-field-testing\/neemo-19-crew-shares-undersea-experiences\/\">NEEMO 19 Crew Shares Undersea Experiences<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/missions\/analog-field-testing\/neemo-19-crew-shares-undersea-experiences\/embed\/#?secret=hS16OS1ITg\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NEEMO 19 Crew Shares Undersea Experiences” — NASA\" data-secret=\"hS16OS1ITg\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/06\/p1080501.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":800}
#### M. M. Miller *v.*W. K. Hall & Wife.

Rents — Rescission of Purchase.

Upon rescission of a contract of purchase of a house and lot, under a judicial sale, Where the purchaser is put in possession, it is not error to charge rent upon same from the time of his entering into possession, where he is allowed for all improvements, interest on purchase money paid.

APPEAL FROM HICKMAN CIRCUIT COURT.

April 21, 1869.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Hardin:

The estimate made by the commissioner and adopted by the court of - the annual rents óf the house and lot occupied by the *95appellant of $220 per annum from the time he took possession as a purchaser, by substitution for Light, Burnet & Co. (deducting four months from the time the Confederate soldiers occupied the property), seems to have been in conformity with the evidence taken by the commissioner.

*Bullock, for appellant.*

*Lindsay, Grossland, for appellees.*

Adopting that estimate, and allowing the' appellant $107 for improvements, and $702.50 with interest from the 3rd day of July, 1860, for money paid by him as purchaser, the account resulted in charging him with $1116 and crediting him by $1111, showing a balance against the appellant of $302, which the court ordered to be paid out of the money belonging to the appellant in the hands of its commissioner, and this appeal is from that judgment. >

The main ground of complaint is that the adjustment of rents was made on an incorrect basis — that appellant having been permitted to take possession under his purchase and occupy the property for nearly three years as his own, even before an appeal was prosecuted from the judgment of sale, and it not having been decided till a .still later period that he could not retain the propery, it is contended that he should not have been made to account for rent till he was ordered to surrender the possession, and we are referred to the case of Washington against McGee *(3*Dana, *445)*as authoritative of this question.

That case, like that of *Ewings Heirs,*&c. *v. Mandleys Exors.,*to which the opinion refers, turned upon very peculiar circumstances, and equitable considerations, which do not, as we think, characterize this case. It is true the appellant entered into the possession as a purchaser, and paid part of the purchase money, and made some improvements on the property, but' the judgment allows him credit by the money he so paid, with interest, and also the amount of the improvements, and we perceive no sufficient reason for exempting him from an accountability for rent while he had the use of the property.

Wherefore, the judgment is *affirmed.*
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"Strategic Partnerships Manager Anita Dey","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"MpmuGflAtt\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/nhq202304260001\/\">Strategic Partnerships Manager Anita Dey<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/nhq202304260001\/embed\/#?secret=MpmuGflAtt\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Strategic Partnerships Manager Anita Dey” — NASA\" data-secret=\"MpmuGflAtt\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/nhq202304260001.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":419}
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Dacia Massengill","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/daciamassengill-2\/","title":"Associate Administrator Jim Free and Mongolian Minister of Digital Development and Communications Nyam-Osor Uchral","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"hzjplwQSld\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/53489313370-62d2bc86d6-k\/\">Associate Administrator Jim Free and Mongolian Minister of Digital Development and Communications Nyam-Osor Uchral<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/53489313370-62d2bc86d6-k\/embed\/#?secret=hzjplwQSld\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Associate Administrator Jim Free and Mongolian Minister of Digital Development and Communications Nyam-Osor Uchral” — NASA\" data-secret=\"hzjplwQSld\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/53489313370-62d2bc86d6-k.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":434}
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ROOSEVELT DAVIS.

July 12, 1984.

Certification is granted, and the matter is summarily reversed and the matter is remanded to the Appellate Division for consideration of defendant’s excessive sentence issue.

Jurisdiction is not retained.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Loura Hall","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/loura-hallnasa-gov\/","title":"Orbit Databases and Fast Gravity Fields for Rapid Trajectory Design Near Small Bodies","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"3YN7bX7nQ6\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/directorates\/stmd\/space-tech-research-grants\/orbit-databases-and-fast-gravity-fields-for-rapid-trajectory-design-near-small-bodies\/\">Orbit Databases and Fast Gravity Fields for Rapid Trajectory Design Near Small Bodies<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/directorates\/stmd\/space-tech-research-grants\/orbit-databases-and-fast-gravity-fields-for-rapid-trajectory-design-near-small-bodies\/embed\/#?secret=3YN7bX7nQ6\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Orbit Databases and Fast Gravity Fields for Rapid Trajectory Design Near Small Bodies” — NASA\" data-secret=\"3YN7bX7nQ6\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/wittick_patrick.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":1067}
#### William Padgett *v.*John W. Highland.

Appearance — Answer of One Defendant.

An answer, which on its face purports to be a joint answer of co-defendants, yet if filed as the answer of one only, the other defendant is not a party to the action, no process having been served on him.

APPEAL FROM BATH CIRCUIT COURT.

February 10, 1870.

*Nesbitt & Gudgell, for appellant.*

Stone, *for appellee.*

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Hardin:

Whether the circuit court properly perpetuated the injunction obtained by the appellee, of the judgment of $56 against' him, on the ground that he was not before the court in the original action, is the only question to be determined on this appeal.

Although an answer pleading a set-off, was filed, which on its face, purports to be the joint pleading of the appellee and his co-defendant, lies, and might, if filed .as such, have constituted an. appearance by the appellee, although he was not served with process, yet as the answer was only ’filed as the answer of lies, and an alias summons was at the same time ordered to be issued against the appellee, on’the appellant’s motion, the answer should only have been treated as the pleading of lies, and not as constructively entering the appearance of the appellee.

We are of the opinion, therefore, that the appellee was not legally before the court, and the judgment as to him was void.

Wherefore the judgment in this action, perpetuating said injunction, is affirmed.
#### DAVID A. PALACIOS v. GIBRALTAR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY.

June 27, 1989.

Petition for certification denied.