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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         123,494
<SECURITIES>                                   123,882
<RECEIVABLES>                                  128,946
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,662
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               430,272
<PP&E>                                          89,551
<DEPRECIATION>                                  60,981
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 601,931
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          228,986
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           679
<OTHER-SE>                                     359,060
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   601,931
<SALES>                                        510,770
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               612,193
<CGS>                                           77,669
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  108,216
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               485,756
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,129
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 32,964
<INCOME-TAX>                                    61,320
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (28,356)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (28,356)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.41)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.41)
        

</TABLE>
#### Phillip Del Nero, Appellant, v Mark Colvin, Respondent.

(Appeal No. 1.)

[974 NYS2d 814]

— Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Brian F. DeJoseph, J.), entered March 14, 2012. The order, among other things, granted the motion of defendant for summary judgment dismissing the second amended complaint.

*1250It is hereby ordered that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs *(see Loafin’ Tree Rest, v Pardi*[appeal No. 1], 162 AD2d 985, 985 [1990]). Present — Smith, J.P, Garni, Sconiers and Valentino, JJ.
<PAGE>

Exhibit 23.1

                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our
report included in this Form 10-K, into the Company's previously filed
Registration Statements File Nos. 33-64878, 33-89820, 33-99946, 333-03928,
333-66849, 333-28361, 333-48961 and 333-66849 on Form S8 and 333-00358,
333-49667, 333-19301, 333-43611, 333-36703, 333-32571, 333-28647, 333-27763,
333-26381, 333-49667, 333-58929, 333-65891, 333-69825, 333-72609, 333-75143,
333-85937, 333-91893 and 333-94319 on Form S-3.


ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

Chicago, Illinois
March 30, 2000
#### State v. Bates

Case below: 179 N.C. App. 628

No. 456P05-2

Def’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA04-777-2)

Denied 10/11/07

Hudson, J., Recused
#### In the Matter of Jose D. Martinez, Petitioner, v Brian Fischer, Commissioner, New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, et al., Respondents.

[974 NYS2d 883]

— Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred

*1308to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department by order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Oneida County [Samuel D. Hester, J.], entered April 17, 2013) to review a determination of respondent. The determination found after a Tier III hearing that petitioner had violated various inmate rules.

It is hereby ordered that the determination is unanimously confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed. Present — Smith, J.E, Peradotto, Garni, Valentino and Whalen, JJ.
#### Natalia Cokings Oakes, Individually and as Successor Trustee of the Herbert C. Oakes Living Trust, as Assignee of Herbert C. Oakes, Jr. and Another, and as Guardian of Leopold V. Oakes, an Infant, Respondent, v Betty O. Muka, Appellant.

Decided October 19, 2010

Appeal, insofar as taken from the June 2010 Appellate Division order, dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that it does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution; appeal, insofar as taken from the January 2010 Appellate Division order, dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved.
EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

Shaman
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
South San Francisco, California

We
hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Nos. 333-78115 and 333-86463 made on Form S-1; Registration Nos.
333-36024 and 333-37360 made on Form S-3; and Registration Nos. 33-66450, 33-93938, 333-30365, 333-09169, and
333-96323 made on Form S-8 of Shaman Pharmaceuticals, Inc. of our report dated April 4, 2001, relating to the consolidated financial statements and
Schedule of Shaman Pharmaceuticals, Inc. appearing in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2000. Our report contains an explanatory
paragraph regarding the Company's subsequent filing of Chapter 11 Bankruptcy petition on January 5, 2001 and imminent liquidation.

/s/BDO SEIDMAN, LLP

San
Francisco, California
April 27, 2001

17

---

QuickLinks
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-20033 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus GANTRY LADREW UTLEY, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-96-CR-74-5

- - - - - - - - - - December 2, 1998 Before DAVIS, DUHE’, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Gantry Ladrew Utley appeals his conviction and sentence for aiding and abetting the possession of cocaine with intent to distribute on March 11, 1996, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. The evidence was not insufficient to support the conviction. See United States v. El-Zoubi , 993 F.2d 442, 445 (5th Cir. 1993); United States v. Bermea , 30 F.3d 1539, 1551 (5th Cir. 1994); United States v. Gonzales , 121 F.3d 928, 936 (5th Cir. 1997), cert. denied , 118 S. Ct. 726 (1998).No. 98-20033 -2- The jury was free to infer from taped telephone calls involving Utley, as interpreted by Utley’s codefendant and cousin, that he was directly involved in the March 11, 1996, transaction and that he sought by his actions to make it succeed. See Gonzales , 121 F.3d at 936.
AFFIRMED.
*September 28, 2023*

**Facebook****Email**Print**Facebook****Email

*Follow this link for the original release of this article:**Conquering Low Back Pain: Finding the Best Treatment for Individual Patients*

**Facebook****Email**Print**Facebook****Email
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 13

- 00623

- CR

Jose Torres Jr. a/k/a Jose Torres

v. The State of Texas
On Appeal from the 404th District Court of Cameron County , Texas Trial Cause No. 2013

- DCR

- 2036

- G

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, havin g considered this cause on appeal, concludes the appeal should be DISMISSED

. The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion

. We further order this decision certified below for observance.

May 22, 2014
<PAGE>



Exhibit 32.1

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

     The undersigned executive officers of the registrant hereby certify that
this Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained herein fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the registrant.

                                               Parkvale Financial Corporation


Dated:  October 27, 2006
                                               By: /s/ Robert J. McCarthy, Jr.
                                                   -----------------------------
                                               Robert J. McCarthy, Jr.
                                               Director, President and
                                               Chief Executive Officer

Dated:  October 27, 2006
                                               By: /s/ Timothy G. Rubritz
                                                   -----------------------
                                               Timothy G. Rubritz
                                               Vice President-Treasurer and
                                               Chief Financial Officer



                                       21
III 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 15 

Encouraging all Americans to increase their charitable giving, with the goal 

of increasing the annual amount of charitable giving in the United 

States by 1 percent. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 8, 2005 

Mr. SANTORUM submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Encouraging all Americans to increase their charitable giving, with the goal of increasing the annual amount of 

charitable giving in the United States by 1 percent. 

Whereas individual charitable giving rates among Americans 

have stagnated at 1.5 to 2.2 percent of aggregate individual income for the past 50 years; 

Whereas a 1 percent increase (from 2 percent to 3 percent) 

in charitable giving will generate over $90,000,000,000 to 

charity; 

Whereas charitable giving is a significant source of funding 

for health, education, and welfare programs; and 

Whereas a 1 percent increase in charitable giving may reduce 

the Federal deficit, reduce the call for tax increases, and 
2 

•SCON 15 IS

provide funds to benefit our national health, education, 

and welfare goals: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), That Congress encourages all Americans to 

3 increase their charitable giving, with the goal of increasing 

4 the annual amount of charitable giving in the United 

5 States by 1 percent. 

Æ
#### Mead *v.*Platt.

*(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.*

August 16, 1883.)

Bamkbuptcy—Dismissal ob1 Appeal—Costs.

Where an appeal from the disallowance of a claim by the district court is dismissed for want of jurisdiction, docket fees or other costs are not taxable.

In Bankruptcy.

*Coleridge A. Hart,*for appellee.

*Black & Ladd,*for appellant.

Wheeler, J.

This appeal from the disallowance of a claim by the district court in bankruptcy is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The appellee claims costs of the motion, admitting that he is not entitled to costs of the cause, and that no costs but for a docket fee are taxable on the motion. The language of the supreme court upon this subject is uniform and decisive. In *Inglee*v. *Coolidge,*2 Wheat. 363, Mr. Chief Justice Marshall said: “The court does not give costs where a cause is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.” In *Mc-Iver*v. *Wattles,*9 Wheat. 650, he said again: “In all cases where the cause is dismissed for want of jurisdiction no costs are allowed.” And in *Strader*v. *Graham, 18*How. 602, the court said: “This court cannot give a judgment for costs in á case dismissed for want of jurisdiction.” *Hayford*v. *Griffith,*3 Blatchf. 79, cited for the appellee, does not appear to have, been dismissed for want of jurisdiction entirely, but for want of security. This fee is taxable only in cases where by law costs are recoverable in favor of the prevailing party, under section 983, Rev. St., and as a part of such costs. *Goodyear*v. *Sawyer,*17 Fed. Rep. 2. This court had no jurisdiction by this appeal of any cause in which to render judgment for costs. If there 'were other costs on the motion which could be allowed, this fee would not be taxable in addition to them, for they would not be taxable in the cause on a disposition of it on the merits. *Dedekam*v. *Vose,*3 Blatchf. 77, 153. And, further, this appeal is a case at law, as distinguished from cases in equity and admiralty, and in cases at law tho allowance of such a fee is provided for only on trial by jury, when judgment is rendered without jury, and when “the cause is discontinued,” except in some special proceedings different from this, Bev. St. 824. Here is no jury trial, no judgment rendered, no cause to render judgment in, and none to be discontinued; and consequently nothing on which the docket fee is taxable.

Motion for costs denied.
#### State v. Brown

Case below: 172 N.C. App. 171

No. 413P05

1. AG’s Motion for Temporary Stay (COA04-737)

2. AG’s Petition for Writ of Supersedeas

3. AG’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31

4. Def’s Motion to Dissolve Stay

1. Allowed Pending Determination of the State’s PDR 359 N.C. 854

Stay dissolved 12/19/06

2. Denied 12/19/06

3. See Special Order Page 149

4. Dismissed as Moot 12/19/06
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed October 11, 2017.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D16-2898

Lower Tribunal No. 12-22426

________________

Brenda Williams, et al.,

Appellants,

vs.

Marye Johnson, et al.,

Appellees.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Thomas J.

Rebull, Judge.

Law Offices of Robin Bresky, Daniel S. Weinger and Robin Bresky (Boca

Raton), for appellants.

Legal Services of Greater Miami, Inc., Jacqueline C. Ledón and Anna-Bo

Emmanuel, for appellees.

Before EMAS, LOGUE and LINDSEY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.
Appellants Brenda Williams and Epiphany Community Development Corp.

appeal from the trial court’s entry of judgment in accordance with appellees’

motion for directed verdict in favor of appellees, Marye Johnson and

Comprehensive Outreach Programs, Inc. Upon our de novo review, we hold that

the trial court properly granted appellees’ motion and entered judgment in their

favor. Appellants sought damages on a theory of unjust enrichment. However,

given the existence of an express contract covering the same subject matter,

“claims arising out of that contractual relationship will not support a claim for

unjust enrichment.” Moynet v. Courtois, 8 So. 3d 377, 379 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009),

disapproved of on other grounds, Bank of New York Mellon v. Condo. Ass’n of

La Mer Estates, Inc., 175 So. 3d 282 (Fla. 2015). See also Braham v. Branch

Banking and Trust Co., 170 So. 3d 844 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (citing Diamond “S”

Dev. Corp. v. Mercantile Bank, 989 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) for the

proposition that plaintiff could not pursue unjust enrichment claim where express

contract existed concerning the same subject matter); Atlantis Estate Acquisitions,

Inc., v. DePierro, 125 So. 3d 889 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013); Kovtan v. Frederiksen, 449

So. 2d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).

Affirmed.

2
A06A0190.

#### SIMMONS v. SOPRAMCO III, LLC.

(630 SE2d 61)

MIKELL, Judge.

Johnny Simmons appeals from the trial court’s order dated August 25, 2005, granting judgment to Sopramco III, LLC, in its dispossessory action against Simmons. In his pro se appellate brief, Simmons contends that the evidence was not sufficient to show that the foreclosure sale of his property took place before he filed for bankruptcy. He also disputes the balance owed under the security deed. However, Simmons’s arguments are not supported by reference to the record or citation of authority, as required by our Rule 25.1

Furthermore, the trial court’s order shows that the matter came before the trial court in a nonjury trial, after which, based on the argument and the evidence, the trial court found that Sopramco was *831entitled to a writ of possession. Simmons failed to request that a transcript of these proceedings be included in the record.

Decided March 7, 2006

Reconsideration denied April 13, 2006.

Johnny Simmons, *pro se.*

*McCullough & Payne, Michael D. Payne, for*appellee.

> When a transcript of the evidence is necessary, as it is here, and the appellant omits it from the record or fails to submit a statutorily authorized substitute, we must assume that the evidence supported the grant of a writ of possession. As the appellant, [Simmons] had the burden to affirmatively show error by the record. This he failed to do. Therefore, we must presume the trial court’s judgment granting [Sopramco] a writ of possession is correct.

(Citations and footnotes omitted.) *Wimbley v. Washington Mut. Bank,*271 Ga. App. 477, 478 (610 SE2d 124) (2005). See also *Archer v. Pryer,*275 Ga. App. 663 (621 SE2d 601) (2005). The trial court’s judgment must be affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Blackburn, P. J., and Adams, J., concur.*

1

 Simmons also fails to abide by our Rule 28 (a) (1) by requesting oral argument in his brief rather than in a separate document certifying, among other things, that opposing counsel has been notified of the request. Simmons’s request for oral argument is denied.
656 S.E.2d 375

#### In the Matter of Tynika Adams CLAXTON, Respondent.

No. 26417.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Submitted Nov. 27, 2007.

Decided Jan. 14, 2008.

Lesley M. Coggiola, Disciplinary Counsel, and Ericka M. Williams, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, both of Columbia, for Office of Disciplinary Counsel.

Jason B. Buffkin, of Cayce, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

In this attorney disciplinary matter, respondent and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel have entered into an Agreement for Discipline by Consent (Agreement) pursuant to Rule 21, RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR. In the Agreement, respondent admits misconduct and consents to the imposition of a range of sanctions from a confidential admonition to a sixty day suspension pursuant to Rule 7(b), RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR. We accept the agreement and suspend respondent from the practice of law in this state for sixty days. The facts, as set forth in the Agreement, are as follows.

*220
      *FACTS*

Respondent conducted a closing of a mortgage without the presence of a third party witness. Subsequent to the closing, respondent requested and allowed her husband to sign as a witness to the mortgage when he was not present at the execution of the mortgage and did not witness the execution of the mortgage. Respondent, in her capacity as Notary Public for the State of South Carolina, took the oath of her husband regarding his witnessing the mortgagees’ signatures on the mortgage when respondent knew the testimony to be false. This occurred on eight other occasions.

*Law*

Respondent admits that by her conduct she has violated the following provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 407, SCACR: Rule 4.1 (a)(in the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person); Rule 8.4(a) (it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct); and Rule 8.4(d)(it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation). Respondent also admits that she has violated Rule 7(a)(1) of the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement, Rule 413, SCACR, by violating the Rules of Professional Conduct.

*Conclusion*

We find a sixty day suspension is the appropriate sanction for respondent’s misconduct. Accordingly, we accept the Agreement for Discipline by Consent and suspend respondent from the practice of law for sixty days. Within fifteen days of the date of this opinion, respondent shall file an affidavit with the Clerk of Court showing that she has complied with Rule 30, RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR.

DEFINITE SUSPENSION.

TOAL, C.J., MOORE, WALLER, PLEICONES and BEATTY, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          13,912
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           6,620
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                49,135
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     20,270
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         102,318
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            99,957
<LOANS>                                      1,033,143
<ALLOWANCE>                                     13,372
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,229,699
<DEPOSITS>                                   1,073,448
<SHORT-TERM>                                     4,670
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             12,900
<LONG-TERM>                                     55,650
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         6,735
<OTHER-SE>                                      76,296
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               1,229,699
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 55,286
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                7,493
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                62,779
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              34,379
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              36,896
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           25,883
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      147
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 12,873
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 15,516
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      15,516
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,824
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.66
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.64
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.57
<LOANS-NON>                                      2,498
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                13,253
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      149
<RECOVERIES>                                       121
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               13,372
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            13,372
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                         13,115


</TABLE>