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

<ARTICLE>       9
<MULTIPLIER>    1,000
       
<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                       DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                  15,249
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                     491
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                         5,600
<TRADING-ASSETS>                             0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>            120,399
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                       0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                         0
<LOANS>                                325,774
<ALLOWANCE>                              4,825
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         477,964
<DEPOSITS>                             410,139
<SHORT-TERM>                             3,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                     10,069
<LONG-TERM>                             14,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        0
<PREFERRED>                                  0
<COMMON>                                30,283
<OTHER-SE>                              10,473
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>         477,964
<INTEREST-LOAN>                         29,240
<INTEREST-INVEST>                        6,491
<INTEREST-OTHER>                           828
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                        36,559
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                      15,426
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      16,435
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                   20,124
<LOAN-LOSSES>                            1,215
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                         143 
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                         18,539
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          9,129
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>               6,097
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              0
<CHANGES>                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                             6,097
<EPS-PRIMARY>                             2.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                             1.93
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                            4.70
<LOANS-NON>                              1,283
<LOANS-PAST>                               189
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                           408
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                          2,400
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                         4,125
<CHARGE-OFFS>                              741
<RECOVERIES>                               226
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                        4,825
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                     2,709
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                          0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                  2,116
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Benjamin Lizardi, Appellant.

[821 NYS2d 457]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles H. Solomon, J), rendered on or about September 16, 2003, unanimously affirmed.

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833 [1976]). We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous points which could be raised on this appeal.

Pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law § 460.20, defendant may apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals by making application to the Chief Judge of that Court and by submitting such application to the Clerk of that Court or to a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of this Department on reasonable notice to the respondent within 30 days after service of a copy of this order, with notice of entry.

Denial of the application for permission to appeal by the judge or justice first applied to is final and no new application may thereafter be made to any other judge or justice. Concur— Andrias, J.E, Marlow, Nardelli, Williams and Sweeny, JJ.
#### In the Matter of A. Dennis Gardner, Respondent, v Coxsackie-Athens Central School District Board of Education, Appellant.

Submitted April 30, 2012;

decided June 26, 2012

On the Court’s own motion, appeal dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that the order appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution. Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution and is not a nonfinal order of the type provided for in CPLR 5602 (a) (2).
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Dennis James, Appellant.

[822 NYS2d 514]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan C. Sudolnik, J.), rendered September 7, 2004, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third and fifth degrees, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender to an aggregate term of 4V2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. The radioed description was sufficiently specific to provide the arresting officer with reasonable suspicion for defendant’s initial detention pending confirmatory viewing by the undercover officer, given the spatial and temporal factors and the fact that defendant was the only person present matching the description *(see People v Haulsey,*298 AD2d 129 [2002], *lv denied*99 NY2d 582 [2003]; *People v Rampersant,*272 AD2d 202 [2000], *lv denied*95 NY2d 870 [2000]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan, McGuire and Malone, JJ.
# Publications about Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)

Helping Children and Adolescents Cope With Traumatic Events

This fact sheet presents information on how children and adolescents respond to traumatic events, and what family, friends, and trusted adults can do to help.

En español

Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder

This brochure provides information about post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) including what it is, who develops PTSD, symptoms, treatment options, and how to find help for yourself or someone else who may have PTSD.

En español
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION ACCOMPANYING FORM 10-Q REPORTOF SECURITY CAPITAL ASSURANCE LTDPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002(Chapter 63, Title 18 U.S.C. §§1350(a) and (b))

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Chapter 63, Title 18 U.S.C. 1350(a) and (b)), each of the undersigned hereby certifies that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
  the period ended March 31, 2008 of Security Capital Assurance Ltd (the Company) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
  and that the information contained in such Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

| |  |                                                                                    
| |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | Dated: May 12, 2008                                                                
| |  | /s/ Paul S. Giordano                                                               
| |  | PAUL S. GIORDANOPresident and Chief Executive OfficerSecurity Capital Assurance Ltd

| |  |                                                                                                
| |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | Dated: May 12, 2008                                                                            
| |  | /s/ David P. Shea                                                                              
| |  | DAVID P. SHEAExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerSecurity Capital Assurance Ltd

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the
  electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Security Capital Assurance Ltd and will be retained by Security Capital Assurance Ltd and furnished to the
  Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



---
<Page>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                             LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARIES OF SNTL CORPORATION  ("SNTL"), A DELAWARE CORPORATION

         SNTL Holdings Corporation ("Holdings"), a Delaware corporation
         Superior National Capital Holding Corporation ("SNCHC"), a Nevada
         corporation
         Superior National Capital Trust I, a Delaware Statutory trust

SPERIOR NATIONAL CAPITAL, L.P., A BERMUDA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

         SNTL and SNCHC are the two general partners

WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARIES OF Holdings

         Pacific Insurance Brokerage, Inc., a California corporation
         InFoNet Management Systems, Inc. a California corporation
         SN Insurance Services, Inc., a California corporation
         SN Insurance Administrators, Inc., a California corporation
         Superior (Bermuda) Ltd., a Bermuda corporation
         Superior Pacific Casualty Company ("SPCC"), a California corporation
         Superior National Insurance Company ("SNIC"), a California corporation
         California Compensation Insurance Company, a California corporation
         Combined Benefits Insurance Company, a California corporation
         Commercial Compensation Casualty Company, a California corporation

WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF SPCC

         Regional Benefits Insurance Services, Inc., a California corporation

WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF SNIC

         Western Select Service Corp., a California corporation
IV 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 23 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the United States 

Postal Service should take all appropriate measures to ensure the continuation of door delivery for all business and residential customers. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 4, 2019 

Mrs. DAVIS of California (for herself, Mr. KING of New York, and Mr. JOYCE

of Ohio) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Reform 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that 

the United States Postal Service should take all appropriate measures to ensure the continuation of door delivery for all business and residential customers. 

Whereas the United States Postal Service has announced 

that it may need to eliminate or reduce levels of door-todoor delivery service by the conversion of millions of 

homes and businesses to centralized delivery or curbside 

and require those who wish to retain their door service 

to pay a delivery tax; 

Whereas reduced levels of service will have an immediate impact on current year revenue and a long-term impact on 

the viability of a business inevitably causing a larger drop 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 23 IH 

in revenue from service cuts than from the estimated savings of elimination or reducing door delivery; 

Whereas door delivery is a vital service that the American 

people have relied on since the 1860s in both rural and 

urban areas and ensures the security of mail and packages; 

Whereas voluntary conversion of businesses in 2013 equated 

to a mere 0.8 percent of voluntary conversions confirming 

that businesses depend on in-person contact with letter 

carriers to ensure transactional security and initiate new 

business and revenue for the Postal Service; 

Whereas millions of Americans will be forced to retrieve their 

daily mail and packages from a centralized location removing the daily convenience for Americans in receiving 

checks, medications and other essential items; and 

Whereas eliminating or reducing door delivery services will 

serve as a hindrance for the elderly and disabled who will 

be forced to retrieve their mail and packages and be required to submit to a cumbersome application process in 

order to opt out of the requirement: Now, therefore, be 

it 

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that the United States Postal Service should 

3 take all appropriate measures to ensure the continuation 

4 of door delivery for all businesses and residential cus5 tomers. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
#### EMPIRE LIQUOR CORPORATION v. GIBSON DISTILLING CO.

District Court, S. D. New York.

Dec. 3, 1941.

*248I. Gainsburg, of New York City (Joseph P. Segal, of New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff.

Jay Leo Rothschild, of New York City (Jay Leo Rothschild and Louis Rivkin, both of New York City, of counsel), for defendant.

LEIBELL, District Judge.

Defendant moves (1) for a stay of this action because the same cause of action has been pleaded as a counterclaim in a state court action between the same parties, wherein the present defendant is the plaintiff; and (2) for a stay of the examination before trial of four witnesses, whose depositions are sought under Rule 26, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c.

The first part of the relief sought is denied. Both lawsuits are actions in personam. The existence of the state court action and the counterclaim therein would not in and of itself require this court to stay the present action. Byrd-Frost, Inc., v. Elder, 5 Cir., 93 F.2d 30, 31, at page 32, 115 A.L.R. 342, citing United States Supreme Court cases.

As to defendant’s second request that the examination of the witnesses be stayed, it appears that the Gibson Distilling Company’s complaint in the state court action was verified January 15, 1941 and the Empire Liquor Corporation’s answer thereto, pleading the counterclaim, was verified February 14, 1941. Empire Liquor Corporation’s suit in this court was filed January 30, 1941, based on a complaint verified January 27, 1941.

The trial of the state court action is set for December 10th. The trial of the action in this court may take place several weeks hence. The request for the examination of these four witnesses and many others was made last spring. In fact the original notice therefor was served April 28, 1941, but the examination of these four witnesses was put off from time to time to suit the convenience of the various attorneys, who now are not in agreement as to who is responsible for most of the delay. A new notice, dated November 15, 1941, called for the examination of the four witnesses on November 19, 1941.

Under the circumstances here presented, I believe the examination was originally sought in good faith in order to prepare for the trial of the action in this court. If it had been shown that the action in this court was instituted by plaintiff to-use it as a vehicle for examining witnesses under our liberal Federal Rules, with the real purpose of thus preparing for the trial of the state court action, I would have stayed the examination of these witnesses. Under Rule 30(d), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, an examination used for any such ulterior purpose would be oppressive.

Defendant’s motion is accordingly denied. The examination of the four witnesses shall proceed before the notary at the place specified in the notice of November 15, 1941, on December 6th, 1941 at 10 A. M., and continue from day to day until completed.

Submit order on one day’s notice.
Order filed February 4, 2020 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-19-00875-CR

____________

IN RE BENJAMIN OSHEA CALHOUN, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

County Criminal Court at Law No. 16

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2274904

ORDER

Relator Benjamin Oshea Calhoun filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this 

court. Relator asked this court to compel the Honorable Tanya Jones, presiding 

judge of Harris County Criminal Court at Law No. 15 to take certain actions in 

connection with the case below in trial court cause number 2274904, styled The State 

of Texas v. Benjamin Oshea Calhoun. Judge Jones recused herself from cause 

number 2274904. 

On December 19, 2019, this court abated the original proceeding concerning 

trial court cause number 2274904, styled The State of Texas v. Benjamin Oshea 

Calhoun, to permit the Honorable Darrell Jordan, presiding judge of County 

Criminal Court at Law No. 16, to reconsider the decisions regarding relator’s 
requests for relief. See Tex. R. App. P. 7.2(b); In re Blevins, 480 S.W.3d 542, 544 

(Tex. 2013) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (holding that when judge, who signed 

challenged order has recused from case, court of appeals may abate original 

proceeding to allow new judge to consider challenged order). We directed Judge 

Jordan to provide this court with signed orders reflecting his rulings regarding 

relator’s requests for relief. We received no response from Judge Jordan.

It has come to the court’s attention that, on December 10, 2019, the trial court 

dismissed the criminal cause against relator in cause number 2274904, styled The 

State of Texas v. Benjamin Oshea Calhoun. 

The Harris County District Clerk is directed to file a clerk’s record with this 

court on or before February 14, 2020, containing the motion to dismiss with the 

signed order dismissing the case filed on December 10, 2019.

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Zimmerer, Spain, and Hassan.
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

In connection
with the Quarterly Report of LifeCare Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, W. Earl Reed,
III, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 220, that:



| | (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 position and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: November 14, 2006



/s/ W. EARL REED, IIIW. Earl Reed, IIIChief Executive Officer




31
#### Wilfredo Lopez, Appellant, v Richard A. Fenn, Respondent, et al., Defendants.

Submitted July 2, 2012;

decided September 18, 2012

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
RECEIVED IN

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

m O^-VHr *oB\l>-c^s JUL 14 2011

UvW-T A\Wr\ ^VWH, .^eWtxv^XAbefAcosta,Clerk

V.

TrsaX roo. £>X^-W-o\9>H*V

eoVHs. AWeAW^T Whs y\o uj>c^\ ©9 vy-noV^o^ os&Hv.

See', Tte\? £*•-

K,vtA\Wo CsVWM

3okoV,0^.5^4

FILED IN &<2durno^V ,Tx 711s

COURTOFCRIMINAL APPEALS

JUL 14 2015

Abel Acosta, Clerk
fOO. 03~ \H -Oo3\3 -c&

CerT»9H VWiVS^VYnCs.^, Koe Co?Ss <£? We. otaove

tOoY\c>fV u)a^ Se>r^r Vo Vh«t CLer\A qV VV>e comcV <J?

?VosecuV»n^ AWomeM qy^gJ 4-W Pcove^yVoc on +V^e

aPPeal- EH PiQCin^ QrC^ m YW U S, V^WY , ad^re^S^

-Vo VW c\dcK of or?e\X\s , o\: CcufT 0V XWe^sWVW

TWrd d,^ncV df T***s, ?,0-fc*X \^H~7 Ao^J«^S

^o\,on W We <?\Y^o> df ***** Os^S, ^u\M 8} ^OVD-

•:•••• A^W^>R'~0^
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7415
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus HORACE OMAR JACKSON, a/k/a Horace Banks, a/k/a Omar Jackson, a/k/a Todd Banks, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Richard C. Erwin, Senior District Judge. (CR-91-57-G, CA-97-58-2) Submitted: February 12, 1998 Decided: February 26, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Horace Omar Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin H. White, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find noreversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Jackson , Nos. CR-91-57-G; CA-97-58-2 (M.D.N.C. Sept. 16, 1997). 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.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Kurt Dalmata, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of High End Ventures, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of High End Ventures, Inc.



|       |                            
|------ | ---------------------------
|By:    | /s/ KURT DALMATA           
|Name:  | Kurt Dalmata               
|Title: | Chief Executive Officer and
|       | Chief Financial Officer    
|Dated: | August 14, 2009
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL,

Petitioner 

v.

THOMAS ALLEN CRAWFORD, JR.

 Respondent 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 2138 Disciplinary Docket No. 3

No. 160 DB 2014

Attorney Registration No. 30215

(Allegheny County)

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 14th day of November, 2017, upon consideration of the Report 

and Recommendations of the Disciplinary Board, Thomas Allen Crawford, Jr. is 

disbarred from the Bar of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and he shall comply with 

provisions of Pa.R.D.E. 217. Respondent shall pay costs to the Disciplinary Board 

pursuant to Pa.R.D.E. 208(g).
Exhibit 32

Certification

Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the undersigned hereby certifies that:

(1) I have reviewed the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Inland Land Appreciation Fund, L.P.  (the "Report") to which this statement is an Exhibit;

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

(3) The information contained in the Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Inland Land Appreciation Fund, L.P. 

 

By: Inland Real Estate Investment Corporation

       General Partner

/S/ Kelly Tucek____________________________________

Name: Kelly TucekTitle: Assistant Vice President of the General Partner and        Principal Financial Officer of Inland Land Appreciation Fund, L.P.

Date: August 11, 2003
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

EASTERN DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Respondent 

 v. 

MAURICE JACKSON, 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 201 EAL 2016 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 13th day of September, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of 

Appeal is DENIED. 

Justice Mundy did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.