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

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001067701
<NAME> UNITED RENTALS INC /DE
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          21,793
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  262,025
<ALLOWANCES>                                    29,577
<INVENTORY>                                     74,895
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       1,788,805
<DEPRECIATION>                                 428,668
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,531,683
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                      1,235,508
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           334
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,001,870
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,531,683
<SALES>                                        804,262
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               804,262
<CGS>                                          530,212
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  194,672
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (4,524)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                10,827
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              39,170
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 44,732
<INCOME-TAX>                                    26,450
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             18,282
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 21,337
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,055)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Marti ADDAMS-MORE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 05-5024.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Feb. 14, 2005.

ORDER

The appellant having failed to file the brief required by Federal Circuit Rule 31(a) within the time permitted by the rules, it is

ORDERED that the notice of appeal be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED, for failure to prosecute in accordance with the rules.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Science Foundation

In accordance with Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub., L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:

*Name:*                     Advisory Committee for International Science and Engineering Meeting. #25104.                

*Date/Time:*                     November 6, 2014: 11 a.m. to 2 p.m.                

*Place:*                     National Science Foundation, 4121 Wilson Boulevard, Stafford II—Suite 1155, Arlington, Virginia 22230.                

*Type of Meeting:*                     OPEN, VIRTUAL.                

*Contact Person:*                     Diane Drew, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230 703-292-7220.                

*Minutes:*                     Meeting minutes and other information may be obtained from the AC-ISE Designated Federal Official at the above address or the Web site at                     *http://www.nsf.gov/​od/​iia/​ise/​advisory.jsp.*

*Purpose of Meeting:*                     To provide advice and recommendations on major goals and policies pertaining to International programs and activities.                

## Agenda

### Thursday, November 6, 2014 11 a.m.-2 p.m.

    - Welcome and Opening Remarks
    - Update on the Status of the ISE Section
    - Presentation and Discussion of the Report from the ISE Committee of Visitors
    - Presentation and Discussion of the Strategic Framework for International Engagement
    - Discussion of Other Recent Evaluations of NSF International Activities
    - (Tentative) Meeting with France Córdova, NSF Director
    - Closing Remarks and Wrap Up

Dated: October 17, 2014.

Suzanne Plimpton,

Acting Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 2014-25153 Filed 10-22-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                    DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         6228000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 12699000
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (604000)
<INVENTORY>                                    2761000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              19786000
<PP&E>                                         4592000
<DEPRECIATION>                                (768000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                26580000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         11075000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         68000
<OTHER-SE>                                    14167000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  26580000
<SALES>                                       23849000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              24381000
<CGS>                                         17487000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 30079000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (31000)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (4723000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     75000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (4648000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (4648000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.74)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.74)



</TABLE>
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.



## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2009-3151 WILLIAM B. WILEY,

Petitioner,

v. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, Respondent. Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in

SF0831090055-1-1. ON MOTION Before NEWMAN, Circuit Judge. ORDER The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) moves to reform the caption to name the Merit Systems Protection Board as the respondent. OPM states that the Board consents to this motion. William B. Wiley opposes. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 7703(a)(2), the Board is designated as the respondent when the Board's decision concerns the procedure or jurisdiction of the Board. The employing agency is designated as the respondent when the Board reaches the merits of the underlying case. In this case, the Board dismissed the appeal because OPM rescinded its decision and advised that it would be issuing a new decision. Wiley's argument that the dismissal was improper does not change the fact that the Board did not reach the merits of the underlying case. Thus, pursuant to the statute, the Board is designated as the respondent.Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT: The motion is granted. The official caption is reflected above. FOR THE COURT 

### MAY 19 

# 2009 /s/ Jan Horbalv Date Jan Horbaly Clerk

cc: Peter B. Broida, Esq. Sameer P. Yerawadekar, Esq. Jeffrey Gauger, Esq. s19 

# imegiStor

MAY 19 2009 JAN liORNALY CLERK

2009-3151 2
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 208 (Tuesday, October 28, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 64205]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-25511]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases Special Emphasis Panel, NIAID Peer Review Meeting.
    Date: November 21, 2014.
    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fisher Lane, 
Rockville, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Brenda Lange-Gustafson, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, NIAID/NIH/DHHS, Scientific Review Program, Room 3122, 5601 
Fisher Lane, Rockville, MD 20892 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2341445650574245504c4d634d4a424a470d4d4a4b0d444c55"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d4b6b3a1a7a0b5b2a7bbba94babdb5bdb0fababdbcfab3bba2">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, 
Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: October 22, 2014.
David Clary,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-25511 Filed 10-27-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### John B. Campbell et al *v.*The Commonwealth. (four cases)

Interest — Wot Allowable on Suit to Collect Back Taxes.

In a suit by the Commonwealth for judgment; against the sureties on the sheriff’s bond, for back taxes assessed, interest should not be allowed on same prior to the date of such bond.

APPEAL FROM FRANKLIN CIRCUIT COURT.

June 22, 1869.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Robertson:

Under a statute of June 3, 1865, the Auditor reported to the Attorney General for collection, an assessment of back taxes in Perry County for the years 1862-3-4-5, for the collection of which the sheriff had executed bond with several sureties, in the year 1866. On that bond the commonwealth *ex parte,*moved the Franklin circuit court, at its fiscal term in January 1868, for judgments for taxes and damages for each of those years, and obtained four *244judgments against principal and sureties with interest from each year and damages and costs.

*James, for appellants.*

*Attorney General, for appellee.*

These four appeals present various questions, none of which need be noticed now, except the question of interest.

As the back taxes assessed in 1866 could neither have borne interest nor have been collectible before that time, if so soon, there is obvious error in adjudging interest from antecedent periods.

For this error each of the four judgments is reversed and the causes remanded for further proceedings, when the appellants, notified as parties, may make defense on all the points involved in the litigation.
<PAGE>
                                  Exhibit 10.10

                        Capital One Financial Corporation

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

           Amended and Restated Change of Control Employment Agreement

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

Each of the following executive officers of Capital One Financial Corporation
has entered into an Amended and Restated Change of Control Employment Agreement,
between the executive officer and the registrant, in the form previously filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 23, 2000 as Exhibit 10.10.2
to the Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1999 as amended:

Gregor S. Bailar
Marjorie M. Connelly
Larry A. Klane
Dennis H. Liberson
William J. McDonald
Peter A. Schnall
Catherine G. West
#### James S. Chandler *v.*Elisha Riggs et al.

Mandate — Judgment in Conformity Thereto — Court of Appeals Without Power to Modify.

The Court of Appeals is without legal power to modify or change the judgment of a lower court rendered in conformity to its former opinion and mandate.

APPEAL FROM LYON CIRCUIT COURT.

December 22, 1868.

*Bush &*Bush, *for appellant.*

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Peters:

Appellant in his answer and cross-petition avers that the superior title to the land was in Briggs and wife, and not in his vendor; but he does not allege that he entered under Gist & Co., nor that he had made valuable, and lasting improvements on the land and does not ask for compensation for any amelioration of the land if he was never in possession thereof, and actually made such; consequently in the opinion and mandate of this court, appellees having- shown themselves entitled to the land directed a judgment to be rendered therefor pretermitting any compensation for improvements. The court below on the return of the cause rendered judgment in conformity to said opinion and mandate, by which the question now raised was concluded, and this court has no -legal power to modify, or change, the same.

Wherefore the judgment is *affirmed.*
**Exhibit 32**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002In connection with the Quarterly Report of PSB Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for theperiod ended September 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below,hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.       /s/ Anthony DiSandro,     President and Chief Executive Officer         /s/ John Carrozza,     Senior Vice President and        Chief Financial Officer         Dated: November 14, 2005  
25
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Cleopatria Martinez,

Plaintiff,

v.

Maricopa County Community College 

District; et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV 15-01759-PHX-NVW

ORDER

Before the Court is Defendants' Motion to File Task-Based Itemized Statement of 

Fees and Expenses and Fee Agreement Under Seal (Doc. 96). Good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED granting the Defendants’ Motion to File Defendants’ 

Task-Based Itemized Statement of Fees and Expenses and Fee Agreement Under Seal 

(Doc.96).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is instructed to accept and 

place under seal Defendants’ Task-Based Itemized Statement of Fees and Expenses and 

Fee Agreement.

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 96-1 Filed 11/15/17 Page 1 of 1
#### Anthony W. DEZA, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Alberto GONZALES,* Attorney General, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 04-55250.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 18, 2005.**

Decided March 18, 2005.

Carlos A. Cruz, Esq., Law Office of Carlos A. Cruz, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Debra W. Yang, Esq., USLA — Office of the U.S. Attorney Civil & Tax Divisions, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before: KOZINSKI, TROTT, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel amends the caption to reflect that the Attorney General is the proper respondent and directs the Clerk to amend the docket accordingly. *See Ali*v. *Ashcroft,*346 F.3d 873, 888 (9th Cir.2003). The panel also substitutes Alberto Gonzales for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).

**

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

MEMORANDUM ***

Anthony W. Deza, a native and citizen of Peru, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Like the district court, we conclude that Deza’s claims fall outside the jurisdictional scope of Section 2241. Accordingly, we affirm.

We are not persuaded that Deza asserts colorable claims of statutory or constitutional error. *Torres-Aguilar v. INS,*246 F.3d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir.2001). First, the district director declined to extend Deza’s stay of removal “[a]fter careful consideration of all the factors in [his] case.” Second, although the district director’s decision contained an error regarding Deza’s Form 1-140, Deza does not make a color-able showing that the misstatement caused him prejudice. Rather, even if the district director had determined the facts just as Deza alleges them here, he nevertheless would have been free to deny relief based on his view that Deza’s claim for a discretionary adjustment of status lacked substantial merit due to his “consistent pattern of deception and misrepresentation.”

For these reasons, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Deza’s petition for lack of jurisdiction. As we also lack jurisdiction, we may not review Deza’s claim seeking to extend *De Leon v. INS,*115 F.3d *823643 (9th Cir.1997), to motions for stay-pending before the district courts.

AFFIRMED.

***

 xhiS disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Robert CUMMINGS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James RUBENSTEIN, Commissioner of Corrections; Thomas McBride, Warden; Jennifer Ballard; Tim Creasey, Magistrate; Lee Estep; Beverly C. Gandee, Defendants—Appellees.

No. 04-7648.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 25, 2005.

Decided March 10, 2005.

Robert Cummings, Appellant pro se.

Charles Patrick Houdyschell, Jr., West Virginia Division of Corrections, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees.

Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

Robert Cummings appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2000) his complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000). The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Cummings that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Cummings failed to specifically object to the magistrate judge’s recommendations to deny his Eighth Amendment claim and to dismiss some of the claims raised in the motion to amend for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned that failure to object will waive appellate review. *See Wright v. Collins,*766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir.1985); *see also Thomas v. Am,*474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985); *United States v. One Parcel of Real Prop.,*73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir.1996) (collecting cases finding general objection insufficient). Cummings has waived appellate review of those issues by failing to file specific objections after receiving proper notice.

Turning to the only issue preserved for appellate review,* we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error in the district court’s dismissal of Cummings’ First Amendment claim. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Cummings v. Rubenstein,*No. CA-03-2195-5 (S.D.W.Va. Sept. 30, 2004). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are *111adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*

*

 We note that Cummings failed to challenge in his informal brief on appeal the basis for the district court’s dismissal of his due process claims or his retaliation claims. Accordingly, he has waived appellate review of those issues. 4th Cir. R. 34(b) ("The Court will limit its review to the issues raised in the informal brief.”).
AO 458 (Rev. 06/09) Appearance of Counsel

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff

v. Case No.

Defendant

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for:

.

Date:

Attorney’s signature

Printed name and bar number

Address

E-mail address

Telephone number

FAX number

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9528 Filed 01/02/18 Page 1 of 1
---



Exhibit 23.2

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Board of Directors 
  of REGI U.S., Inc.

We consent to the use of our report dated August 9, 2005 on the
  financial statements of REGI U.S., Inc. accumulated from July 27, 1992 (Date
  of Inception) to April 30, 2005 that are included in the Companys Form
  10-KSB, which is included, by reference in the Companys Form S-8.

/s/ MANNING ELLIOTT LLP

CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS

July 29, 2008

---