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

<ARTICLE> 9                          
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000                   
                                     
<S>                             <C>  
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS    
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                             MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       109,899
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                        12,481
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             115,559
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                   0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  823,062
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                       548,474
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                         542,227
<LOANS>                                    3,347,718
<ALLOWANCE>                                   38,994
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             5,125,671
<DEPOSITS>                                 3,963,906
<SHORT-TERM>                                 308,802
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                           88,765
<LONG-TERM>                                  309,536
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            444
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                           0
<OTHER-SE>                                   454,218
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             5,125,671
<INTEREST-LOAN>                               61,121
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              6,139
<INTEREST-OTHER>                              20,348
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                              87,608
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                            40,630
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            49,441
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                         38,167
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               372
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                               30,501
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               20,738
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                    13,791
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 (403)
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                  13,388
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   0.33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   0.32
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                  3.20
<LOANS-NON>                                   14,552
<LOANS-PAST>                                   5,595
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                 600
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                               59,473
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                              39,985
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  1,551
<RECOVERIES>                                     560
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                             38,994
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                          38,994
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            0
        

</TABLE>
VfrS-tS

ELECTRONIC RECORD

COA# 01-11-01114-CR OFFENSE: 29.03 (Agg Robbery)

John James Smith v. The State of

STYLE: Texas COUNTY: Harris

COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRM TRIAL COURT: 184th District Court

DATE: 05/30/2013 Publish: NO TC CASE #: 1234109

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

John James Smith v. The State of

STYLE: Texas

?Rn *f.

CCA#: HbS-tS

Petition

FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS:

DATE: Qtr/jy/ftP/fJUDGE: q£*^

CCA Disposition:

DATE:

JUDGE:

SIGNED:

PUBLISH:

REHEARING IN CCA IS:

JUDGE:

PC:_

DNP:

MOTION FOR

ELECTRONIC RECORD
SAMSON LOYNACHAN CAUSE* COURT OF

V. CRIMINAL

STATE OF'TEXAS APPEALS

MOTION FOR SUSPENSION OF RULES

TO THE HONORABLE COURT,

Comes now, Samson M. Loynachan, Appellant Pro Se under the protection of Haines v. Kerner,

404 US 520 (1972) per liberal construction/application to pro se litigants and respectfully

moves this court to exercise it's authority under Rule 2 Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure

(TRAP) and suspend rules 9.3, 9.4, and 9,5 of the TRAP. In support of this motion, appell

ant would show the following:

I.

Appellant as a Texas inmate does not have access to a computer, printer, or copier to

make required copies to send to all parties included and this makes adhering to the pre

ceding rules impractical.

PRAYER

Appellant prays this court grants this motion and suspends the rules of the TRAP.

Respectfully Submitted,

^—-S-ftflSON LOYNACHffK #1?69266

FRENCH ROBERTSON UNIT

12071 FM 3522

ABILENE, TX, 79601

FILED IN

COURTOF CRIMINAL APPEALS

JUL 10 2015

Abel Acosta, Cierk
No. 4971.

(Court of Appeal, Parish of Orleans.)

#### FRANK T. PAYNE vs. LYONS CYPRESS LUMBER COMPANY.

B. B. Howard and H. M. Gautier for plaintiff and appellee.

W. C. McLeod for defendant and appellant.

DUFOUR, J.

Plaintiff’s suit to recover the value of his services in preparing a map is met with the defense that he has not complied with his contractual obligation.

In January, 1906, Payne, a civil engineer and the defendant company, owner of a saw mill and timber lands, entered into a written contract by the terms of which Payne was to make a survey of defendant’s property *326and a map thereof, and to deliver to defendant field notes.

April 4, 1910.

Rehearing refused April 18, 1910.

The work was to be completed within four months.

In consideration thereof the defendant was to pay $425, when the survey was finished, and $525 when the map and field notes were delivered to defendant.

The first sum has been paid and the second alone is in question, and, although the work was not finished within four months, it is admitted that, as the plaintiff was not put in default, the expiration of the time limit is without significance.

The defendant’s claim is that plaintiff delivered an incomplete map, and the plaintiff’s contention is that the retention of the map by defendant prevented him from complying with his obligation.

When, at the hurrying request of the company, Payne sent the map for correction and suggestion, it was stated by Mr. Lyons, a Chicago representative of the company, that, with certain specified exceptions, the map was exceptionally well made.

With the desire of rectifying the errors and supplying the omission complained of Payne and his counsel made demands for the return of the map, but without avail.

It is clearly shown that, owing to the unexplained failure or refusal of defendant to return the map, the plaintiff was unable to fulfill his obligations.

Defendant cannot avoid the burden of a contract when its own conduct prevented plaintiff from carrying out his part of the undertaking, and when the latter was ready and willing to discharge his obligation.

The judgment condemning defendant is correct.

Judgment affirmed.
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-15-00235-CR

IN RE MATTHEW ALAN CLENDENNEN

Original Proceeding

ORDER

Relator Matthew Alan Clendennen’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus was filed on 

July 1, 2015. Relator has since filed a Motion to Excuse the Filing of a Clerk’s Record. 

The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure do not contemplate a record filed by 

either the clerk or the court reporter in an original proceeding. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7. The 

appellate rules specify the filing of the record is the responsibility of the relator. Id. 

52.7(a). Generally, what would appear in a clerk’ record is brought before the Court by 

the relator pursuant to Rule 52.7(a)(1). Id. (a)(1). Further, testimony and exhibits that 

would appear in a reporter’s record are brought before the Court pursuant to Rule 

52.7(a)(2). Id. (a)(2).
In re Clendennen Page 2

The Clerk will accept and file a clerk’s record or a reporter’s record directly from 

the clerk or reporter in a mandamus proceeding as a substitute for a record filed by the 

relator. Such substitution does not excuse or relieve the obligation of the relator to 

otherwise provide the record necessary to review the issues presented in the petition. 

The relator’s motion represents that the relator has filed as either an appendix or sworn 

record the documents needed for the Court to conduct its review of the issues. There is 

no duty on the trial court clerk to file additional documents for the mandamus record to 

be complete.

Accordingly, relator’s Motion to Excuse the Filing of a Clerk’s Record is 

dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM

 

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Response requested

Order issued and filed July 16, 2015
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Loss provision for doubtful accounts is included in total costs.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996             DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-30-1996             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996             DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           1,475                   1,475
<SECURITIES>                                     2,141                   2,141
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,313                   9,313
<ALLOWANCES>                                       351                     351
<INVENTORY>                                      8,591                   8,591
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                22,098                  22,098
<PP&E>                                          17,803                  17,803
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,155                   9,155
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  30,968                  30,968
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,914                   2,914
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0 
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                         6,396                   6,396
<OTHER-SE>                                      21,458                  21,458
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    30,968                  30,968
<SALES>                                         11,551                  49,120
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                11,551                  49,120
<CGS>                                            8,318                  33,932
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   10,801                  44,687
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (11)                   (486)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  (21)                     104
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (28)                    (54)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    789                   4,973
<INCOME-TAX>                                       224                   1,812
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                565                   3,161
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                       565                   3,161
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .16                     .89
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .16                     .89
        

</TABLE>
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: In re Houston Progressive Radiology Associates, PLLC, Rodolfo L.
Garcia and Brandon C . Stroh

Ap pellate case number: 01

- 14

- 00463

- CV

Trial court case number: 2014

- 1 2279

Trial court: 80th District Court of Harris County

Relators Houston Progressive Radiology Associates, PLLC, Rodolfo L. Garcia and
Brandon C. Stroh have filed a petition for writ of mandamus directed at the district court’s order denying their plea in abatement and motion to dismiss the underlying lawsuit in favor of
arbitration

. Relators have also filed a parallel interlocutory appeal of that order

, Houston Progressive Radiology Associates, PLLC, Rodolfo L. Garcia and Brandon C. Stroh v. Stephen B.

L ee, M.D., P.A. a Texas Professional Association, Dean Paul Chauvin, Jr., M.D., P.A., a Texas Professional Association, and Michael Nguyen, M.D. , 01

- 14

- 00467

- CV. See T EX

. C IV

. P RAC

. &
R EM

. C ODE A NN

. § 51.016 (West 2011); § 171.098 (West 2011).

Relators h ave filed an Emergency Motion to Stay All Trial Court Proceedings Pending Appellate Review of Order Denying Arbitration. The motion is GRANTED; we STAY all proceedings in the trial court, including discovery, pending further order of this Court. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.10

. It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Rebeca Huddle

_____

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: June 27, 2014
#### Teddy Moore, Appellant, v Frank Guerra, Defendant, and Christopher Bramwell et al., Respondents.

Submitted July 23, 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 *(see Butler v New York City Tr. Auth.,*67 AD3d 620 [2009], *lv dismissed*14 NY3d 909 [2010]). Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic.
Exhibit
32.3





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of BreitBurn Energy Partners L.P (the
“Partnership”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, James G. Jackson, Chief Financial Officer of BreitBurn GP, LLC, the general
partner of the Partnership, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to
my knowledge:





(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 results of operations of the
Partnership.





/s/ JAMES G. JACKSONJames
      G. JacksonChief
      Financial Officer of BreitBurn GP, LLCDated:  November
      6, 2009
#### In the Matter of A. Dennis Gardner, Respondent, v Coxsackie-Athens Central School District Board of Education, Appellant.

Submitted May 20, 2013;

decided June 26, 2013

On the Court’s own motion, appeal dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved. Motion for leave to appeal denied.
Page 1 of 3 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

)

LORRAINE BOND, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

Civil Action No. 21-cv-1430 (TSC)

)

OFFICE OF ATTORNEY 

GENERAL OF THE UNITED 

STATES, et al.,

)

)

)

)

Defendants. )

)

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

On May 25, 2021, pro se Plaintiff Lorraine Bond filed what appears to be a 

Complaint regarding the 1985 bombing of Osage Avenue in Philadelphia. ECF No. 1, 

Compl. She asks the Court to award compensatory and punitive damages against 

Defendants, who include the United States Attorney General, E & I Dupont, as well as 

Pennsylvania and Philadelphia public officials. Id. at ECF pp. 1, 8, 13-14. She also asks 

the court to order Defendants to reconstruct all the homes damaged in that bombing, 

although there is no indication that she owned any of the residences affected. See id. at 

ECF p. 14. 

On October 30, 2021, the court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this action 

should not be dismissed for failing to effectuate service of process, as it appeared she had 

yet to request summonses. 10/30/21 Amend. Min. Order (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); 

Local Civil Rule 83.23). The court also directed Plaintiff to show cause why this action 
Page 2 of 3 

should not be dismissed for improper venue. Id. (citing 28 U.S.C. §1392; 28 U.S.C. 

§1406). 

 Plaintiff filed a response in which she claimed only that “Pro se has shown the 

burden of proof with the proper venue on record” and “Pro so is a layman of the law and 

can’t be held to the strict standard as a license [sic] attorney.” ECF No. 5, Response to 

Show Cause Order ¶¶ 2–3. 

“The Court is mindful that a pro se litigant’s complaint is held to a less stringent 

standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 

239 (D.D.C. 1987) (citing Redwood v. Council of D.C., 679 F.2d 931, 933 (D.C. Cir. 

1982); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972)). However, this standard “does not 

constitute a license for a plaintiff filing pro se to ignore” the requirements of the law. See 

Jarrell, 656 F. Supp. at 239. 

 Plaintiff’s response is insufficient, as she has not established that she effectuated 

service of process. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Indeed, the record indicates that she never 

requested summonses. Likewise, is not clear that venue is proper in this District. See 8 

U.S.C. § 1391. 

Although Plaintiff also filed several “Notices,” ECF Nos. 3–4, 6, 7, none of them 

address the deficiencies the court noted in its show cause order. Accordingly, this court 

will dismiss this action for lack of prosecution. See Local Civil Rule 83.23. 

 In so doing, this court notes that is unlikely this court has personal jurisdiction over 

some of the Defendants, and it appears that some of the issues Plaintiff raises in her 

Complaint have been previously adjudicated, as her pleadings mention prior litigation 
Page 3 of 3 

involving the same subject matter as involved here. See ECF No. 3; Compl at ECF pp. 6–

7. 

 

Date: September 22, 2022 

Tanya S. Chutkan 

TANYA S. CHUTKAN

United States District Judge
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13-A-14 OR 15D-14 OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT
OF 1934, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Terri Lyn Harris, certify that:

1.    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of WorldWater Corp.;

2.    Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual
report;

3.    Based my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4.    The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

      a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure the material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this annual report is being prepared;

      b. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual
report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

      c. presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date.

5.    The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee
of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
function):

      a. all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

      b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6.    The registrant's other certifying officer and I have indicated in this
annual report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls
or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent
to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

By:    /s/ Terri Lyn Harris
       -----------------------
Name:  Terri Lyn Harris
Title: Chief Financial Officer

Dated: April 20, 2004
#### In the Matter of Angel H., Also Known as Angel L.H., and Another. Mercy First, Respondent; Omayra G., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (And Another Proceeding.)

Submitted August 5, 2013;

decided September 3, 2013

Motion for leave to appeal denied. Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic. Motion for a stay dismissed as academic.
IV 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 620 

In the Matter of Nancy Pelosi. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 8, 2019 

Mr. ABRAHAM (for himself and Mr. ALLEN) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Ethics, and in addition to 

the Committee on Rules, for a period to be subsequently determined by 

the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

RESOLUTION 

In the Matter of Nancy Pelosi. 

1 Resolved, That pursuant to Article I, Section 5, 

2 Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, Representative 

3 Nancy Pelosi, be, and she hereby is, expelled from the 

4 House of Representatives and the Office of the Speaker 

5 is declared to be vacant. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22

- 6018

ANTHONY ANDREWS , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. BRYAN K. DOBBS, Warden FCI Williamsburg , Respondent

- Appellee

.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Greenville

. David C. Norton , District Judge. ( 6:20

- cv - 03026

- DCN )

Submitted : November 7, 2022 D ecided: November 21, 2022

Before WYNN and QUATTLEBAUM , Circuit Judges , and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Anthony Andrews , Appellant Pro Se. USCA4 Appeal: 22-6018 Doc: 18 Filed: 11/21/2022 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Anthony Andrews appeals the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)
motion . We have rev iewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm
the district court ’s order

. Andrews v. Dobbs , No. 6:20

- cv - 03026

- DCN (D.S.C. Dec. 8, 2021). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presen ted in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 22-6018 Doc: 18 Filed: 11/21/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Effrin McNeill, Appellant.

Submitted August 5, 2013;

decided August 22, 2013

*1027Motion for an extension of the time within which to apply for permission to appeal pursuant to CPL 460.20 granted and motion papers treated as a timely CPL 460.20 application.