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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM SEC FORM
10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>                    
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   APR-30-1998
<CASH>                                          4,837
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   8,446
<ALLOWANCES>                                      656
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               14,401
<PP&E>                                          7,882
<DEPRECIATION>                                  5,659
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 17,668
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           6,641
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                       317
<COMMON>                                          133
<OTHER-SE>                                     10,577
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   17,668
<SALES>                                         3,731
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                5,055
<CGS>                                             681
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   4,223
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                3,121
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              125,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,344)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,344)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,344)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.18)
        


</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ROBERT WEST, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CA 14-00218-CG-C

SAM COCHRAN, SHERIFF OF :

MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA,

:

Defendant.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This cause is before the Magistrate Judge for issuance of a report and 

recommendation, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), on defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 

9) and plaintiff’s response (Doc. 13). Given plaintiff’s concession that the motion to 

dismiss is “well-taken[]” (Doc. 13), the undersigned RECOMMENDS that defendant 

Cochran’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 9) be GRANTED.

Although plaintiff’s response contains a request that he be granted leave of court 

to file an amended complaint (Doc. 13), such request need be made by motion, see 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2) (“[A] party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s 

consent or the court’s leave.”), and at such time as the movant requests leave of court to 

file an amended complaint he should attach to his motion the proposed amendment. 

Thereafter, the Court will be in a position to rule on the requested amendment after 

extending to the defendant an opportunity to object (or not object). 

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO FILE OBJECTIONS

A copy of this report and recommendation shall be served on all parties in the 

manner provided by law. Any party who objects to this recommendation or anything in 

Case 1:14-cv-00218-CG-C Document 14 Filed 09/02/14 Page 1 of 2
2

it must, within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this document, file specific 

written objections with the Clerk of this Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED.R.CIV.P. 

72(b); S.D.ALA. L.R. 72.4. The parties should note that under Eleventh Circuit precedent, 

“the failure to object limits the scope of [] appellate review to plain error review of the 

magistrate judge’s factual findings.” Dupree v. Warden, 715 F.3d 1295, 1300 (11th Cir. 2013) 

(emphasis in original). In order to be specific, an objection must identify the specific 

finding or recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for the objection, 

and specify the place in the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation where the 

disputed determination is found. An objection that merely incorporates by reference or 

refers to the briefing before the Magistrate Judge is not specific.

DONE this the 2nd day of September, 2014.

s/WILLIAM E. CASSADY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00218-CG-C Document 14 Filed 09/02/14 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION BY
WILLIAM C. OWENS 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 Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q of Owens Mortgage  Investment Fund, a California  Limited
 Partnership (the "Issuer") for the period ending  September 30, 2003 as filed with the
 Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, William C.
Owens,  Chief Executive  Officer of Owens Financial Group,  Inc., the General Partner of
the Issuer,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  §  1350, as adopted  pursuant to §  906 of
the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, that:

(1)   The
Report  containing  financial  statements of the Issuer 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 Issuer.

/s/ William C. Owens
William C. Owens
Chief Executive Officer of Owens Financial Group, Inc., General Partner
November 12, 2003

---

CERTIFICATION BY
BRYAN H. DRAPER 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 Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q of Owens Mortgage  Investment Fund, a California  Limited
 Partnership (the "Issuer") for the period ending  September 30, 2003 as filed with the
 Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Bryan H.
Draper,  Chief Financial Officer of Owens Financial Group, Inc., the General Partner of
the Issuer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §  1350, as adopted pursuant to §  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)   The
Report  containing  financial  statements of the Issuer 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 Issuer.

/s/ Bryan H. Draper
Bryan H. Draper
Chief Financial Officer of Owens Financial Group, Inc., General Partner
November 12, 2003
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE

.

IN THE 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

STATE OF ARIZONA , Respondent ,

v.

RICHARD ALLEN WEBB , Petitioner

. N o . 1 CA

- CR 18

- 0440 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2007

- 174190

- 001 The Honorable Andrew G. Klein , Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELI EF DENIED

COUNSEL Maricopa C ounty Attorney’s Office, Phoenix By Diane Meloche Counsel for Respondent

R ichard Allen Webb , Florence Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Kenton D. Jones, Vice Chief Judge Peter B. Swann , and Judge David D. Weinzweig delivered the decision of the Court. FILED 1-3-2019STATE v. WEBB Decision of the Court

2 P E R C U R I A M : ¶1 Richard Webb seeks review of the superior court’s order dismissing his petition for post

- convic tion relief , filed pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. This is the petitioner’s fourth successive petition

. ¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this Court will not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post

- conviction relief. State v. Gutierrez , 229 Ariz. 573, 576

- 77, ¶ 19 (2012). It is the petitioner’s burden to show that the superior court abused its discretion in denying the petition. See State v. Poblete , 227 Ariz. 537, 538, ¶ 1 (App. 2011). ¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior court’s order denying the petition for post

- conviction relief, and the pe tition for r eview. We find that the petitioner has not shown any abuse of discretion. ¶4 Accordingly, we grant review and deny relief.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

GERALD K. STOKES,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 69 EM 2019

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 15th day of October, 2019, the Application for Leave to File 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc is DENIED.
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION II

No. CR-13-482

ALFRED JAMES WALKER

APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

Opinion Delivered December 11, 2013

APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI 

COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, 

FOURTH DIVISION

[NO. CR-12-2081]

HONORABLE HERBERT WRIGHT, 

JUDGE

AFFIRMED

RHONDA K. WOOD, Judge

Appellant Alfred James Walker was convicted of theft of property greater than 

$1,000 but less than $5,000, a Class D felony. On appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of 

the evidence supporting his conviction. His argument is not preserved for appeal, and we 

affirm. 

Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 33.1 requires a defendant to renew a motion 

for directed verdict or dismissal at the “close of the case” in order to preserve for review 

any question pertaining to the sufficiency of the evidence. To preserve for appeal the issue 

of the sufficiency of the evidence in a criminal case, the appellant must move for a 

directed verdict at the close of all the evidence. Sellers v. State, 2013 Ark. App. 210. Here, 

Walker moved to dismiss the charges against him at the close of the State’s evidence. 

However, at the close of all evidence, he failed to renew his motion. Following the strict 

Cite as 2013 Ark. App. 742
2

standard set out in Rule 33.1(c), Walker failed to preserve for appellate review the issue of 

sufficiency of the evidence. 

 Affirmed. 

 WYNNE and HIXSON, JJ., agree. 

William R. Simpson, Jr., Public Defender, Brandy Turner, Deputy Public Defender, 

by: Margaret Egan, Deputy Public Defender, for appellant. 

Dustin McDaniel, Att’y Gen., by: Kathryn Henry, Ass’t Att’y Gen., and Nathan 

Aylesworth, Law Student Admitted to Practice Pursuant to Rule XV of the Rules 

Governing Admission to the Bar of the Supreme Court under the supervision of Darnisa 

Evans Johnson, Deputy Att’y Gen., for appellee. 

Cite as 2013 Ark. App. 742
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 243 (Thursday, December 18, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 75554]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29763]



[[Page 75554]]

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

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION


Sunshine Act Meeting

    Pursuant to the provisions of the ``Government in the Sunshine 
Act'' (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that at 10:24 a.m. on 
Tuesday, December 16, 2014, the Board of Directors of the Federal 
Deposit Insurance Corporation met in closed session to consider matters 
related to the Corporation's supervision, corporate, and resolution 
activities.
    In calling the meeting, the Board determined, on motion of Vice 
Chairman Thomas M. Hoenig, seconded by Director Jeremiah O. Norton 
(Appointive), concurred in by Director Richard Cordray (Director, 
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau), Director Thomas J. Curry 
(Comptroller of the Currency), and Chairman Martin J. Gruenberg, that 
Corporation business required its consideration of the matters which 
were to be the subject of this meeting on less than seven days' notice 
to the public; that no earlier notice of the meeting was practicable; 
that the public interest did not require consideration of the matters 
in a meeting open to public observation; and that the matters could be 
considered in a closed meeting by authority of subsections (c)(4), 
(c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9)(A)(ii), (c)(9)(B), and (c)(10) of the 
``Government in the Sunshine Act'' (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4), (c)(6), 
(c)(8), (c)(9)(A)(ii), (c)(9)(B), and (c)(10)).
    The meeting was held in the Board Room of the FDIC Building located 
at 550 17th Street NW., Washington, DC.

    Dated: December 16, 2014.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Robert E. Feldman,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-29763 Filed 12-16-14; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         841501
<NAME>                        OWENS MORTGAGE INVESTMENT FUND
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                  JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                    SEP-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                 1
<CASH>                            4,018,971
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                   175,815,828
<ALLOWANCES>                     (3,500,000)    
<INVENTORY>                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                176,334,799
<PP&E>                           13,370,336
<DEPRECIATION>                            0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  189,705,135
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               686,512
<BONDS>                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<COMMON>                                  0
<OTHER-SE>                      189,018,623       
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    189,705,135
<SALES>                           5,288,986
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  5,288,986
<CGS>                                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  1,115,918
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   4,173,068
<INCOME-TAX>                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               4,173,068
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                      4,173,068
<EPS-PRIMARY>                          .022
<EPS-DILUTED>                          .022
        


</TABLE>
#### Charles Graves *v.*T. D. Collins & Son.

Mechanics’ Liens — Attaching of Liens.

Mechanics and material men are allowed liens upon the buildings erected by them, or out of their materials and upon the estate of the debtor in the land upon which the building stands, but the mere promise by the purchaser that he will use the material in the construction of a building does not give to the material-man a lien on such land.

Attaching of Liens.

The lien of a mechanic or material-man attaches to the building and land upon which it stands when the labor is performed and the material is used in the construction.

APPEAL PROM MARION CIRCUIT COURT.

April 6, 1876.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay :

Mechanics and material-men are allowed by statute a lien upon the buildings erected by them or out of their material, and upon the estate of the debtor in the land upon which the building stands, upon the idea that their labor or property has conduced to1 better its condition or to enhance its value.

The mere promise upon the part of the purchaser that he will use • the material in the construction of a building, does not give tó the material-man a lien upon the land upon which he agrees to erect it. In this case, except to the extent of five or six dollars worth of lumber, put into a hen house, no portion of the lumber sold by appellee *668to Graves was used in improving or bettering the condition of the realty against which the lien is asserted.

*I. D. Belden, for appellant. Russell &*Averitt, *for appellees.*

It was, therefore, error to subject said realty to the payment of the whole of appellees’ claim. Judgment *reversed*so- far as it enforces the asserted lien, and cause remanded for a judgment conformable to this opinion.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1763 

To amend the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 to exclude from income 

for purposes of eligibility for the supplemental nutrition assistance program the basic allowance for housing received by members of the uniformed services. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 23, 2023 

Mr. PANETTA (for himself and Mrs. RODGERS of Washington) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To amend the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 to exclude 

from income for purposes of eligibility for the supplemental nutrition assistance program the basic allowance 

for housing received by members of the uniformed services. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Military Family Nutri5 tion Act of 2023’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1763 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXCLUSION OF BASIC ALLOWANCE FOR HOUSING 

2 FROM INCOME. 

3 Section 5(d) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 

4 (7 U.S.C. 2014(d)) is amended— 

5 (1) in paragraph (18), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the 

6 end, 

7 (2) in paragraph (19)(B) by striking the period 

8 at the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’, and 

9 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

10 ‘‘(20) a basic allowance for housing paid to, or 

11 by a third party on behalf of, a member of a uni12 formed service under section 403 of title 37, United 

13 States Code.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

                               PACTIV CORPORATION
          EXPLANATION CONCERNING ABSENCE OF CURRENT WRITTEN CONSENT OF
                               ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP


         Section 11(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, provides that
if part of a registration statement at the time it becomes effective contains an
untrue statement of a material fact, or omits a material fact required to be
stated therein necessary to make the statements therein not misleading, any
person acquiring a security pursuant to such registration statement (unless it
is proved that at the time of such acquisition such person knew of such untruth
or omission) may assert a claim against, among others, an accountant who has
consented to be named as having certified any part of the registration statement
or as having prepared any report for use in connection with the registration
statement.

         On March 20, 2002, Pactiv Corporation ("Pactiv") dismissed Arthur
Andersen LLP ("AALLP") as its independent auditors. On August 31, 2002, AALLP
voluntarily relinquished all of its permits and is no longer licensed to
practice as a public accountant. As a result, after reasonable efforts, Pactiv
has been unable to obtain AALLP's written consent to the incorporation by
reference from Pactiv's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December
31, 2002, of AALLP's audit report with respect to Pactiv's financial statements
as of December 31, 2001 and for the three years then ended, which by inclusion
in such Form 10-K would be incorporated by reference into previously filed
Registration Statements of Pactiv under the Securities Act.

         Under these circumstances, Rule 437a under the Securities Act of 1933
permits Pactiv to file this Annual Report on Form 10-K without a written consent
from AALLP. However, as a result, AALLP will not have any liability under
Section 11(a) of the Securities Act for any untrue statements of a material fact
contained in the financial statements audited by AALLP or any omissions of a
material fact required to be stated therein. Accordingly, individuals, their
successors or assigns may be unable to assert a claim against AALLP under
Section 11(a) of the Securities Act with respect to such financials. Pactiv
believes, however, that other persons who may be liable under Section 11(a) of
the Securities Act, including the company's officers and directors, may still
rely on AALLP's audit reports as being made by an expert under the due diligence
defense provision of Section 11(b) of the Securities Act.
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<PAGE>

<ARTICLE>                     5                     
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
       
<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             APR-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                MAY-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                  OCT-31-1998
<CASH>                                           95,162
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCES>                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                883,257
<PP&E>                                           17,425
<DEPRECIATION>                                    7,568
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  999,418
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         1,500,188
<BONDS>                                               0        
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                       5,000
<COMMON>                                          9,062
<OTHER-SE>                                     (514,832)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    999,418
<SALES>                                               0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      0
<CGS>                                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   218,163
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               14,650
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (319,163)
<INCOME-TAX>                                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (319,163)
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (319,163)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (0.04)
        



</TABLE>