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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from National
Enterprises  Inc.'s  Consolidated   Balance  Sheet  at  December  31,  1996  and
Consolidated  Statement of Operations  for the year ended December 31, 1996, and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         170,150
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   25,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               295,120
<PP&E>                                         200,192
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 495,342
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          105,073
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    47,212,893
<OTHER-SE>                                 (47,336,624)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   495,342
<SALES>                                        492,320
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               493,981
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  457,528
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                77,735
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (41,282)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (8,624)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (32,660)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (41,282)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
        

</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PATRICIA ORTIZ SALINAS,

Petitioner,

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney

General,

Respondent. No. 14

- 74036

Agency No. A092

- 397

- 663

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of an Immigration Judge’s Decision

Submitted December 18, 2017 **

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Patricia Ortiz Salinas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of

the immigration judge’ s (“IJ”) determination under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(a) that s he

did not have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture and thus is not entitled to

relief from h er reinstated removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unan imously concludes this case is suitable for decision

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

# FILED

DEC 22 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 14

- 74036

§ 1252. We re view for substantial evidence the IJ’s factual findings. Andrade

Garcia v. Lynch , 828 F.3d 829, 836 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny the petition for

review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Ortiz Salinas failed

to demonstrate a reasona ble possibility of future persecution in Mexico on account

of a protected ground. See Nagoulko v. INS , 333 F.3d 1012, 1016, 1018 (9th Cir.

2003) (possibility of future persecution “too speculative”).

Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s determina tion that Ortiz Salinas

failed to demonstrate a reasonable possibility of torture by or with the consent or

acquiescence of the government of Mexico. See Zheng v. Holder , 644 F.3d 829,

835

- 36 (9th Cir. 2011) (fear of torture speculative).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-6192

ANDRE FLENNARD JONES EL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

WARDEN COMMANDING OFFICER, Sheriff; SERGEANT

BONNES, Medical Department Director, Medical

Director Sheriff; DONNA MAYNE, Medical

Director,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge.

(CA-01-34-2)

Submitted: May 31, 2001 Decided: June 8, 2001

Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Andre Flennard Jones El, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Andre Flennard Jones El appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint.

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning

of the district court. See Jones El v. Warden, No. CA-01-34-2 (E.D.

Va. Jan. 22, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 32.2



                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection  with the Quarterly  Report of Life Energy & Technology  Holdings,
Inc.  (the  "Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period ending August 31, 2003, as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"),  I, Salim Ghafari , Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  certify,
pursuant  to 18 U.S.C.  ss.  1350,  as adopted  pursuant  to Section  906 of the
Sarbanes- Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

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

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




By:/s/Salim Ghafari
-----------------------------------------
Chief Financial Officer (or equivalent thereof)

October 17, 2003
#### THE STATE ex rel. MANGER, Appellant, v. HAWES et al.

In Banc,

November 3, 1903.

The judgment in this case is affirmed upon the authority of State ex rel. Rife v. Hayes, reported at page 360 of this volume.

Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Wm *Wm. Zachrits,*Judge.

Akriemed.

*A. A. Paxson*and *B. F. Clark*for appellant.

*C. W. Bates*and *Wm. F. Woerner*for respondents.

GANTT, J.

Relator was appointed an emergency special on April 16, 1889, and within a short time thereafter (the exact date is not given) he was appointed a regular patrolman for a term of four years, which he *401fully served, and now claims lie was reappointed, by implication, for another four-year- term in 1893, and was dropped on October 17, 1895. He asks a mandamus for $2,038.78 for the unexpired part of his term by implication. He was again appointed a probationary patrolman August 21,1899, and is still on the force. Judgment for the defendants, and relator appealed.

He has no case. [State ex rel. Rife v. Hawes, p. 360 of this volume.] The judgment of the circuit court is right and it is affirmed.

All concur.
#### Keiser et al. *v.*Yandes.

Appeal.—Practice.—Dismissal.—Where only a part of the judgment defendants in an action appeal, and notice, of the appeal is notserved on the others, the appeal will be dismissed.

APPEAL from the Marion Common Pleas.

*M. S. Robinson*and *X W. Lovett,*for appellants.

Downey, J.

The judgment, from which the appeal in this case is taken, was rendered in favor of the appellee against George Keiser, George Nichol, Amos J. King, Edward T. Sinker, Daniel Yandes, Sr., and George B. Yandes. The appeal is taken and the errors assigned by Keiser, Nichol, and King only, and there is no notice served on the other judgment defendants, as required by sec. 551, p. 270, 2 G. & H. The appeal must, for this reason, be dismissed. Appeal dismissed, with costs.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

MICHAEL DARNELL OLIVER, * 

AIS #207467, * 

 * 

 Plaintiff, * 

 * 

vs. * CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-00520-KD-B 

 * 

JOHNNY L. JOHNSON, et al., * 

 * 

 Defendants. * 

 ORDER

 After due and proper consideration of all portions of this 

file deemed relevant to the issues raised, and a de novo

determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation 

to which objection is made, the Report and Recommendation of the 

Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(B) is ADOPTED 

as the opinion of this Court. 

 It is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Order of 

Injunction “Memorandum of Law” (Doc. 16) is DENIED as moot. 

 DONE this 13th day of July, 2012. 

 s/ Kristi K. DuBose 

 KRISTI K. DuBOSE 

 UNITED STATE DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:11-cv-00520-KD-B Document 23 Filed 07/13/12 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

GREGORY HUNT, *

#Z-521 *

*

 Plaintiff, *

*

vs. * CIVIL ACTION NO.12-00752-WS-B

*

WALTER MYERS, *

*

 Defendants. *

JUDGMENT

It is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that this action be 

DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 56(a).

DONE this 5th of November, 2015.

s/WILLIAM H. STEELE

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00752-WS-B Document 78 Filed 11/05/15 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

STAN MOORE, )

)

Plaintiff, )

 )

vs. ) Civil Action No. 04-00797-CG-B

)

WARDEN JERRY FERRELL, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

JUDGMENT

In accordance with this court’s order entered on this date, it is hereby ORDERED,

ADJUDGED and DECREED that JUDGMENT is hereby entered in favor of defendants

Warden Jerry Ferrell, Assistant Warden Walter Myers, Correctional Officer Supervisor Tony

Patterson, Correctional Officer Supervisor Albert Williams, Correctional Officer Supervisor

Steven Lane, and Correctional Officer Charles Andrews and against plaintiff Stan Moore on all

claims. Therefore, this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 

DONE and ORDERED this 17th day of August, 2006.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-00797-CG-B Document 34 Filed 08/17/06 Page 1 of 1
#### Charles Anthony PEPPER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GISH; Arturo Venegas, Jr., Chief; City of Sacramento, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 00-16276.

D.C. No. CV 99-00709-FCD(JFM).

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 12, 2001.1

Decided March 26, 2001.

Before WALLACE, SILVERMAN and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

1

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

MEMORANDUM2

Charles Anthony Pepper appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing, under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), his complaint brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that defendants violated his civil rights on three separate occasions.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

We review de novo dismissal of a complaint on statute of limitations grounds. *See Washington v. Garrett,*10 F.3d 1421, 1428 (9th Cir.1993).

Contrary to Pepper’s contention, he is not required to exhaust state tort remedies before bringing a section 1983 action. *See Felder v. Casey,*487 U.S. 131, 140-41, 108 S.Ct. 2302, 101 L.Ed.2d 123 (1988). Because Pepper’s disability expired at the end of each event and he filed his complaint almost two and a half years after the last incident, the district court did not err by dismissing his complaint as untimely under a one-year statute of limitations. *See Elliott v. City of Union City,*25 F.3d 800, 802-03 (9th Cir.1994).

Because Pepper failed to file a claim with the City of Sacramento in accordance with applicable state law provisions, the district court properly dismissed his *475claims. *See Loehr v. Ventura County Community College Dist.,*147 Cal.App.3d 1071, 195 Cal.Rptr. 576, 583 (Cal.Ct.App.1983).

Because Pepper’s complaint could not be cured by amendment, the district court did not err by dismissing without leave to amend. *See Steckman v. Hart Brewing, Inc.*143 F.3d 1293, 1298 (9th Cir.1998).

AFFIRMED.

2

. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### Adam Reinig v. Samuel Munson, drain com’r et al. Angeline Allen v. Samuel Munson, drain com’r et al.

*JDrains*— Notice—Appointment *of commissioners.*

Proceedings to lay out a ditch are fatally defective if there is no affirmative showing that notice was given of the application to the probate court for the appointment of commissioners to assess damages, and of their appointment.

Certiorari. Proceedings to lay ont a township ditch-

Submitted April 15.

Proceedings quashed April 27.

*Tarsney, Tennant & Weadock*for plaintiffs in certiorari.

Marston, C. J.

The proceedings in each of these eases are fatally defective in that no notice appears to have been given of the application to, and appointment of commissioners by, the probate court. The necessity of the proceedings showing affirmatively that such notice was given has been decided so often that it does seem as though the law in this respect should be known and observed more generally than it seems to be. The proceedings in each case-must bé quashed and held for naught.

The other Justices concurred.
EXHIBIT
32





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350








William
C. Owens as Chief Executive Officer and President of Owens Financial Group,
Inc., the General Partner of Owens Mortgage Investment Fund, a California
Limited


Partnership
(the “Registrant”), and Bryan H. Draper, as Chief Financial Officer and
Secretary of Owens Financial Group, Inc., hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350, that:






(1)
            the Registrant’s
      Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2009, as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof


(the “Report”)
      fully complies with the applicable requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and




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








/s/ William C.
Owens


William
C. Owens


Chief
Executive Officer and President of Owens Financial Group, Inc., General
Partner


November
13, 2009





/s/ Bryan H.
Draper


Bryan H.
Draper


Chief
Financial Officer and Secretary of Owens Financial Group, Inc., General
Partner


November
13, 2009
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          239000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                239000
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  310000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           239000
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                       3128000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (3058000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    310000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  5000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (5000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (5000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (5000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 20 2 2

- 2926

_____________________________
T ORREY D EWAYNE W ALKER , Appellant,

v.

J UDICIAL Q UALIFICATIONS C OMMISSION , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County

. Angela C. Dempsey , Judge

. April 11, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
R OBERTS , K ELSEY , and W INOKUR , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Torrey Dewayne Walker , pro se , Appellant.

Lan sing C. Scriven of Lanse Scriven Law, Tampa, for Appellee.
**Exhibit 23**

** **

Consent of IndependentRegistered Public Accounting Firm

 

----

**Exhibit 23**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLICACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

The Board of Directors

Southern FirstBancshares, Inc. and Subsidiary

 

We consent to theincorporation by reference in the Registration Statement of Greenville FirstBancshares, Inc. on Form S-8 relating to the Greenville First Bancshares, Inc.2000 Stock Incentive Plan and 2006 Greenville First Bancshares, Inc. RestrictedStock Plan (File no. 333-133379), of our report dated March 21, 2008, relatingto the consolidated balance sheets of Southern First Bancshares, Inc. (formerlyknown as Greenville First Bancshares, Inc.) andSubsidiary as of December 31, 2007, and the related consolidated statements ofincome, shareholders' equity and comprehensive income, and cash flows for theyear then ended, which appears in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of SouthernFirst Bancshares, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2007.

 

         

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             /s/ Elliott Davis,LLC            

 

Greenville, SouthCarolina

March 21, 2008
Exhibit 10.5
 
  DEFINITIONS
 Board
 Cause
 Change in Control
 Person Outstanding Company Common Stock Outstanding Company Voting




---



##### 



Securities
 Incumbent
Board
 Business Combination
 2




---



##### 



Change in Control Protection Period
 COBRA
 Code
 Company
 Disability
 Effective Date
 Eligible Employee
 ERISA
 Exchange Act
 3




---



##### 



Excise Tax
 Good Reason
 Plan
 Plan Administrator
 Potential Change in Control
     4




---



##### 



Severance
 Severance Date
 Tier I Employee
 Tier II Employee
 Tier III Employee
 Tier IV Employee
 Tier V Employee
 Years of Service
 5




---



##### 



SECTION 2.
    
    SEVERANCE BENEFITS (OTHER THAN DURING CHANGE IN CONTROL PROTECTION PERIOD).
 Tier I Employees
 Tier II Employees
 Tier III and IV Employees
 6




---



##### 



Tier V Employees
 Release
 Time of Payments th th provided however
 Lump Sum Payment
 CHANGE IN CONTROL SEVERANCE BENEFITS
 Generally
 Tier I Employees
 Tier II, III, IV and V Employees
 7




---



##### 



Health & Dental Benefit Continuation Welfare Benefit Continuation
Period
 Outplacement Services
 Legal Fees
 Release
 8




---



##### 



Payment of Benefits th th provided however
 PLAN ADMINISTRATION
    EXCISE TAX
  9




---



##### 



PLAN MODIFICATION OR TERMINATION
  GENERAL PROVISIONS
  Notice
Period
    10




---



##### 



Conditions to Payment and Acceleration; Section 409A of the Code provided
 11




---



##### 



however
 CLAIMS, INQUIRIES, APPEALS
 Applications for Benefits and Inquiries
 
 Denial of Claims
   Request for a Review
 12




---



##### 



Decision on Review
 Rules and Procedures
 Exhaustion of Remedies
 13




---



##### 



Mylan Plan
   14




---



##### 



Date Delivered to Employee:
    
    
    
    Mylan Inc.Date Signed by Employee:
    
    
    
    By:Title:Seven-Day Revocation Period Ends:Signed:
    
    
    
    
    
    Date:
  15
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Unaudited.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         217,379
<SECURITIES>                                   996,874
<RECEIVABLES>                                   44,953
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (31,400)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               669,018
<PP&E>                                      16,067,240
<DEPRECIATION>                                5,00,885
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,732,247
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,031,502
<BONDS>                                     12,905,614
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,732,247
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,434,540
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  680,901
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               300,439
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             572,640
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (119,440)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (12.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit99.1**

 

 

CERTIFICATION

 

I, Raymond J. Pacini, being the Chief ExecutiveOfficer of California Coastal Communities, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certifypursuant to the requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002that, to the best of my knowledge as of the date set forth below (i) theCompany’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2003which accompanies this certification (the “Report”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 
| Dated:  May  7, 2003 | */s/  Raymond J.  Pacini* |
|---------------------------|--------------------------------|
|                      | Raymond J. Pacini              |
|                      | Chief Executive Officer        |

 

----