alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 1188.

#### Crebs *v.*Hudspeth, Warden.

May 27, 1946.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Kansas denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the Form
10-KSB audited consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 1996 and the
audited consolidated statement of earnings for the year ended December 31, 1996
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           2,784
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      561
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                10,257
<PP&E>                                          88,088
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,635
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 116,701
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,934
<BONDS>                                         54,717
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         70
<COMMON>                                            65
<OTHER-SE>                                      36,017
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   116,701
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                29,785
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   34,719
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,457
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (7,995)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,400
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (5,595)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   (758)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,837)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.99)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6414
MANSA MUSA BANSHEE, formerly known as Stanley Rembert Butler, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WILLIAM E. GUNN; CHARLES M. CONDON, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-01-2349-6-10) Submitted: May 16, 2002 Decided: May 28, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mansa Musa Banshee, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Mansa Musa Banshee appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2001). The district court granted Banshee’s motion for a certificate of appealability. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Banshee v. Gunn , No. CA-01-2349-6-10 (D.S.C. Feb. 21, 2002). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 200 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 200

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives with respect to a 
nationwide Town Hall meeting on the new foreign policy doctrines of the 
                               President.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 11, 2003

Mr. Kucinich submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                the Committee on International Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives with respect to a 
nationwide Town Hall meeting on the new foreign policy doctrines of the 
                               President.

    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that 
the President should issue a proclamation--
            (1) calling upon all people of the United States to 
        participate in a Town Hall meeting to discuss the following 
        propositions:
                    (A) That the moral standing of the United States in 
                the world is the most important element of domestic 
                security.
                    (B) That unprovoked attacks by the United States on 
                other countries offend American values and anger the 
                rest of the world.
                    (C) That the financial cost to the United States of 
                acting alone in international affairs generally and in 
                the war and reconstruction of Iraq specifically will 
                compel the Congress to sacrifice funding for schools, 
                child care, health care, retirement security, and other 
                domestic priorities;
            (2) pledging that the President will preside over the Town 
        Hall meeting, answer the people's questions, and hear the 
        opinions of the people of the United States on these matters of 
        national significance; and
            (3) calling upon the local and national television and 
        radio media to make available their broadcast capabilities to 
        allow Americans from all parts of the country to participate in 
        the Town Hall meeting.
                                 <all>
```
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

LIBERTY INTERNATIONAL UNDERWRITERS,

Appellant,

v.

FRISKY LADY VENTURES, LLC and DEMPSEY MARINE 

ELECTRONICS AND ELECTRICAL, a foreign corporation,

Appellees.

No. 4D17-3839

[February 21, 2018]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Jeffrey R. Levenson, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE 16-

014957.

Jerry D. Hamilton, Michael J. Dono and Karina M. Cerda Collazo of 

Hamilton, Miller & Birthisel, LLP, Miami, for appellant.

Stuart Sobel and John I. Criste, Jr. of Siegfried, Rivera, Hyman, Lerner, 

De La Torre, Mars & Sobel, P.A., Coral Gables, for appellee, Frisky Lady 

Ventures, LLC.

PER CURIAM.

Liberty International Underwriters appeals a non-final order denying a 

motion to compel arbitration. Appellee, Frisky Lady Ventures, LLC, 

concedes error.

Accordingly, we reverse the order denying the motion to compel 

arbitration and remand for the trial court to submit the action against 

Liberty International Underwriters to arbitration.

Reversed and remanded.

GROSS, FORST and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Exhibit 23.2

NOTICE REGARDING CONSENT OF ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP  INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

On April 17, 2002, we filed a Current Report on Form 8-K reporting that on April 12, 2002, we discontinued the engagement of
Arthur Andersen LLP as our independent auditors. On May 14, 2002, we filed a Current Report on Form 8-K reporting that on May 8, 2002, we engaged Deloitte &
Touche LLP as our independent auditors for fiscal year 2002. This Annual Report on Form 10-K, which includes the report of Arthur Andersen on our consolidated balance sheets as of
December 31, 2001 and December 31, 2000, and the related consolidated statements of operations, shareholders' investment and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended
December 31, 2001, is incorporated by reference into our previously filed Registration Statements, File Nos. 333-52408 and 333-66244 on Form S-8
(collectively, the "Registration Statements"). After reasonable efforts, we have been unable to obtain Arthur Andersen's consent to incorporate by reference into the Registration Statements its audit
report with respect to the financial statements of the Company as of December 31, 2001 and the three years then ended. Under these circumstances, Rule 437(a) under the Securities Act of
1933, as amended, permits us to file this Form 10-K without such consent from Arthur Andersen. However, as a result, the absence of such consent may limit recovery by investors on
certain claims, including the inability of investors to assert claims against Arthur Andersen under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, for any untrue statements of a material
fact contained, or any omissions to state a material fact required to be stated, in those audited financial statements. In addition, the ability of Arthur Andersen to satisfy any claims (including
claims arising from Arthur Andersen's provision of auditing and other services to us) may be limited as a practical matter due to recent events regarding Arthur Andersen.

---

QuickLinks
#### Antonio WINSLOW, a/k/a Troy Winslow, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 12-7693.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 20, 2012.

Decided: Dec. 27, 2012.

Antonio Douglas Winslow, Appellant Pro Se.

Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Antonio Winslow seeks to appeal the district court’s order treating his Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition, and dismissing it on that basis. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006); *Reid v. Angelone,*369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir.2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Winslow has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.

*268Additionally, we construe Winslow’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive § 2254 petition. *United States v. Winestock,*840 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir.2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2254 petition, a prisoner must assert claims based on either: (1) a new rule of constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review; or (2) newly discovered evidence, not previously discoverable by due diligence, that would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the petitioner guilty of the offense. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2) (2006). Winslow’s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2254 petition.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 324 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 324

         Relating to a question of the privileges of the House.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 18, 2003

             Ms. Pelosi submitted the following resolution

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
         Relating to a question of the privileges of the House.

Whereas during a meeting of the Committee on Ways and Means on July 18, 2003, 
        for the consideration of the bill H.R. 1776, the chairman of the 
        Committee on Ways and Means offered an amendment in the nature of a 
        substitute;
Whereas during the reading of that amendment the chairman of the Ways and Means 
        Committee directed majority staff of the committee to ask the United 
        States Capitol Police to remove minority-party members of the committee 
        from a room of the committee during the meeting, causing the United 
        States Capitol Police thereupon to confront the minority-party members 
        of the committee; and
Whereas pending a unanimous-consent request to dispense with the reading of that 
        amendment the chairman deliberately and improperly refused to recognize 
        a legitimate and timely objection by a member of the committee: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives disapproves of the 
manner in which Representative Thomas conducted the markup of 
legislation in the Committee on Ways and Means on July 18, 2003, and 
finds that the bill considered at that markup was not validly ordered 
reported to the House.
                                 <all>
```
No. 916.

#### Saunders *v.*Wilkins.

June 10, 1946.

*Moss A. Plunkett*and *Arthur Dunn*for petitioner.

*Osmond K. Fraenkel*and *John F. Finerty*filed a brief for the American Civil Liberties Union, as *amicus curiae,*in support of the petition.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that the petition should be granted.
Exhibit
24


Power
of Attorney





WHEREAS , the undersigned
officers and directors of Wilshire Enterprises, Inc. (the “Company”) desire to
authorize Sherry Wilzig Izak to act as their attorney-in-fact and agent, for the
purpose of executing and filing the registrant’s Annual Report on Form 10-K,
including all amendments and supplements thereto,





NOW,
THEREFORE,





KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE
PRESENTS , that each person whose signature appears below constitutes and
appoints Sherry Wilzig Izak , his or her true and lawful attorney-in-fact and
agent, with full power of substitution and re-substitution, to sign the
Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009,
including any and all amendments to such Annual Report, and to file the same,
with all exhibits thereto, and other documents in connection therewith, with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, granting unto said attorney-in-fact and
agent, full power and authority to do and perform each and every act and thing
requisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises, as fully and to
all intents and purposes as he might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and
confirming all that said attorney-in-fact and agent, or his or her substitute or
substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF , the
undersigned have executed this power of attorney in the following capacities as
of the 31st day of March, 2010.





Directors:





By:
                            
                            /s/
      Miles Berger
                            
                            Date:
      March 31, 2010Miles
      BergerBy:
                            
                            /s/
      Milton Donnenberg
                            
                            Date:
      March 31, 2010Milton
      DonnenbergBy:
                            
                            /s/
      S. Wilzig Izak
                            
                            Date:
      March 31, 2010S.
      Wilzig IzakBy:
                            
                            /s/
      Eric J. Schmertz, Esq.
                            
                            Date:
      March 31, 2010Eric
      J. Schmertz, Esq.By:
                            
                            /s/
      Martin Willschick
                            
                            Date:
      March 31, 2010Martin
      WillschickBy:
                            
                            /s/
      S. Wilzig Izak
                            
                            Date:
      March 31, 2010S.
      Wilzig IzakChairman
      of the Board and Chief Executive
                              Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Swift Energy
Pension  Partners  1991-B,  Ltd.'s  balance  sheet and  statement of  operations
contained  in its form 10-Q for the  quarter  ended  September  30,  1997 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         303,010
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  28,678
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               331,688
<PP&E>                                         3,040,183
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (2,434,317)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 937,554
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,860
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     934,694
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   937,554
<SALES>                                        118,718
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               132,107
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  71,911<F1>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                24,544
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            24,544
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   24,554
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
<FN>
<F1>Includes  lease  operating  expenses,  production  taxes  and  depreciation,
depletion and  amortization  expense.  Excludes general and  administrative  and
interest expense.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
Amendment No.1 to  the Amended and Restated Benefit Restoration Plan



 Exhibit 10.16 
 RADIAN GROUP INC. 
 BENEFIT RESTORATION PLAN 
 Amendment No. 1 
 WHEREAS, Radian
Group Inc. (the “Employer”) maintains the Radian Group Inc. Benefit Restoration Plan (the “Plan”) effective January 1, 2007; and 
 WHEREAS, the Employer, pursuant to the provisions of Section 10.1 of the Plan, has the ability to amend the Plan by action of its Board of Directors; and 
 WHEREAS, the Employer desires to amend the Plan to provide the authority for an additional discretionary contribution for certain eligible participants
and to update as needed to revise obsolete references. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended in the following respects, effective as
of the date indicated: 
  

	1.	Effective January 1, 2008, Section 5.1 is amended to replace the references to “Section 1.13(a)” and “Section 1.13(d)” of the Radian Group Inc. Savings
Incentive Plan to Section “1.10(a)” and Section “1.10(c)” respectively. 

  

	2.	Effective January 1, 2008, the last paragraph of Section 5.2 (“Discretionary contributions”) is amended to add the following language to the end thereof:


 “Furthermore, the Employer may, in its sole discretion, award a separate discretionary contribution to Participants
specified by the Board of Directors (or other individual(s) to whom such authority is delegated by the Board). Such contribution may be in addition to or separate from any other discretionary contribution provided under this Section. Such
contribution, if made, shall be made as a fixed percentage of the specified Participant’s Eligible Compensation. Specified Participants must satisfy the eligibility requirements described in this Section to be eligible to receive a separate
discretionary contribution, if applicable.” 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Radian Group Inc. has caused this Amendment No. 1 to be executed
on this 9th day of December, 2008. 
  

			
	 Radian Group Inc.

		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Richard I. Altman

	 Title:
	 	 Chief Administrative Officer