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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FORM 10-Q
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       5,967,608
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       6,906,597
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             4,579,998
<TRADING-ASSETS>                             1,618,172
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      55,863,131
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        55,864,244
<LOANS>                                    242,272,818
<ALLOWANCE>                                    902,800
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             319,130,372
<DEPOSITS>                                 261,692,362
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          8,161,788
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        35,251
<OTHER-SE>                                  49,240,971
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             319,130,372
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              4,961,921
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              912,023
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                38,615
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             5,912,559
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           3,197,536
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        2,715,023
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             142,322
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              1,209,646
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,836,975
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   1,836,975
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,176,706
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.48
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.44
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.55
<LOANS-NON>                                  1,436,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               902,800
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              902,800
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           175,000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        727,800
        

</TABLE>
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 825

To redesignate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

7401 West 100th Place in Bridgeview, Illinois, as the ‘‘Michael J. Healy 

Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 13, 2003

Mr. LIPINSKI (for himself, Mr. RUSH, Mr. JACKSON of Illinois, Mr. GUTIERREZ, Mr. EMANUEL, Mr. HYDE, Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. CRANE, Ms. 

SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. KIRK, Mr. WELLER, Mr. COSTELLO, Mrs. BIGGERT, 

Mr. HASTERT, Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois, Mr. MANZULLO, Mr. EVANS, Mr. 

LAHOOD, and Mr. SHIMKUS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Government Reform 

A BILL

To redesignate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 7401 West 100th Place in Bridgeview, 

Illinois, as the ‘‘Michael J. Healy Post Office Building’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. MICHAEL J. HEALY POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

4 (a) REDESIGNATION.—The facility of the United 

5 States Postal Service located at 7401 West 100th Place 

6 in Bridgeview, Illinois, and known as the Moraine Valley 
2

•HR 825 IH 

1 Post Office, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Mi2 chael J. Healy Post Office Building’’. 

3 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg4 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

5 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

6 be deemed to be a reference to the Michael J. Healy Post 

7 Office Building.

Æ
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We have issued our report dated December 11, 1998, accompanying the consolidated
financial statements included in the Annual Report of E-Sync Networks, Inc.
(formerly known as Wiltek, Inc. and Subsidiary) on Form 10-KSB for the year
ended October 31, 1998. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of
said report in the Registration Statements of Wiltek, Inc. on Forms S-8 (Reg.
Nos. 33-7271 and 333-92933).



GRANT THORNTON LLP

March 5, 2000
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Universal Hospital Services, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Rex T. Clevenger, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| Date:   May 11, 2011    |   |
|------------------------------|--------|
|                         |   |
| /s/   Rex T. Clevenger       |   |
| Rex T. Clevenger             |   |
| Executive Vice President and |   |
| Chief Financial Officer      |   |

 

1

----
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 513 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 513

                   For the relief of Esther Karinge.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 12, 2015

  Mr. Markey introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                   For the relief of Esther Karinge.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR ESTHER KARINGE.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of section 
201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151), Esther 
Karinge shall be eligible for the issuance of an immigrant visa or for 
adjustment of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for 
permanent residence upon filing an application for issuance of an 
immigrant visa under section 204 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1154) or for 
adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident.
    (b) Adjustment of Status.--If Esther Karinge enters the United 
States before the filing deadline specified in subsection (c)--
            (1) she shall be considered to have entered and remained 
        lawfully in the United States; and
            (2) if otherwise eligible, she shall be eligible for 
        adjustment of status under section 245 of the Immigration and 
        Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255) as of the date of the enactment 
        of this Act.
    (c) Deadline for Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) 
and (b) shall not apply unless the application for issuance of an 
immigrant visa or the application for adjustment of status is filed 
with appropriate fees not later than 2 years after the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
    (d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Number.--Upon the granting of an 
immigrant visa or lawful permanent residence to Esther Karinge, the 
Secretary of State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 1, 
during the current or next following fiscal year--
            (1) the total number of immigrant visas that are made 
        available to natives of the country of Esther's birth under 
        section 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
        1153(a)); or
            (2) the total number of immigrant visas that are made 
        available to natives of the country of Esther's birth under 
        section 202(e) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1152(e)), if applicable.
    (e) Denial of Preferential Immigration Treatment for Certain 
Relatives.--The natural parents, brothers, and sisters of Esther 
Karinge shall not, by virtue of such relationship, be accorded any 
right, privilege, or status under the Immigration and Nationality Act 
(8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.).
                                 <all>
```
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

JLA/Research

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ALEJANDRO GARCIA BENITEZ, a.k.a

Pedro Raul Martinez,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 07-73866

Agency No. A073-445-638

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 16, 2010** 

Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. 

Alejandro Garcia Benitez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal

from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,

FILED

FEB 23 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
JLA/Research 2 07-73866

withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). 

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law,

Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except to the extent that

deference is owed to the BIA’s determination of the governing statutes and

regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We review

factual findings for substantial evidence. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182,

1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.

The opening brief does not challenge the agency’s finding that GarciaBenitez’s asylum application was time-barred.

We reject Garcia-Benitez’s contention that he was persecuted on account of

his membership in a protected class. See Arteaga v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 940, 945-

46 (9th Cir. 2007); see also Sanchez-Trujillo v. INS, 801 F.2d 1571, 1573, 1576-77

(9th Cir. 1986). Furthermore, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s findings that

Garcia-Benitez failed to provide an objective basis for future fear of persecution,

see Fakhry v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1057, 1065-66 (9th Cir. 2008), and that GarciaBenitez could relocate within Mexico, see 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(3)(i) (in the

absence of past persecution, petitioner bears the burden of showing that internal

relocation is unreasonable). 
JLA/Research 3 07-73866

Because there is no evidence that he would be tortured by or with the

acquiescence of a government official, Garcia-Benitez has not demonstrated his

eligibility for CAT relief. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir.

2008).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                          DRUG GUILD DISTRIBUTORS, INC.

                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

                                              For the Year Ended July 31,
                                       ----------------------------------------
                                           1996          1995          1994
                                       ------------   -----------   -----------
Weighted average number of common
   shares outstanding (A)  ..........    10,062,000     9,930,000     9,689,000
                                       ============   ===========   ===========

Net income (loss)  ..................  $ (2,264,000)  $  (505,000)  $   308,000

Less:
   Stock dividend on special
     common stock (B)  ..............                                    67,000
   Stock dividend on preferred
     stock ..........................       191,000       291,000       413,000
                                       ------------   -----------   -----------

Net (loss) attributable to common
   stockholders .....................  $ (2,455,000)  $  (796,000)  $  (172,000)
                                       ============   ===========   ===========

Per share:
   Net income (loss) ................  $       (.22)  $      (.05)  $       .03
   Less stock dividend on special
     common stock and preferred
     stock ..........................           .02           .03           .04
                                       ------------   -----------   -----------

Net (loss) attributable to common
   stockholders .....................  $       (.24)  $      (.08)  $      (.01)
                                       ============   ===========   ===========

(A)   In the computation of earnings per share, subscriptions receivable have no
      effect on weighted average number of common shares outstanding.

(B)   Dividend paid-in common stock to stockholders of special common stock, who
      elected to exchange their existing shares for common stock instead of
      preferred stock.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1224

MICHELE P. PARKS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

PETSMART,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, 

Chief District Judge. (5:13-cv-00777-D)

Submitted: June 26, 2014 Decided: July 1, 2014

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michele P. Parks, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Frederick Dimmick, 

ALLEN KOPET & ASSOCIATES, PLLC, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Michele P. Parks appeals the district court’s order

dismissing her complaint. We have reviewed the record and find 

no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons 

stated by the district court. Parks v. PetSmart, No. 5:13-cv00777-D (E.D.N.C. Feb. 12, 2014). 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.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                       2,502,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               33,668,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             139,336,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       16,215,000
<BONDS>                                     72,865,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        90,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  50,166,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               139,336,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            75,904,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            67,911,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,012,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              5,481,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,669,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,812,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.42
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.40


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-7088

JUSTIN HILLERBY,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

KENNETH NELSON, Warden,

 Respondent - Appellee.

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

Greenville. Donald C. Coggins, Jr., District Judge. (6:21-cv-03450-DCC)

Submitted: May 18, 2023 Decided: May 22, 2023

Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Glenn Yarborough, III, WILLIAM G. YARBOROUGH III, ATTORNEY AT 

LAW, LLC, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Melody Jane Brown, Senior 

Assistant Attorney General, Julianna Battenfield, Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF 

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7088 Doc: 14 Filed: 05/22/2023 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Justin Hillerby seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 

U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and 

advised Hillerby that failure to file timely, specific objections to this recommendation 

could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is 

necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the 

parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Martin v. Duffy, 858 

F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 846-47 (4th Cir. 1985); see 

also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 154-55 (1985). Although Hillerby received proper 

notice and filed timely objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, he has waived 

appellate review because the objections were not specific to the particularized legal 

recommendations made by the magistrate judge. See Martin, 858 F.3d at 245 (holding 

that, “to preserve for appeal an issue in a magistrate judge’s report, a party must object to 

the finding or recommendation on that issue with sufficient specificity so as reasonably to 

alert the district court of the true ground for the objection” (internal quotation marks 

omitted)). Specifically, Hillerby failed to substantively challenge the magistrate judge’s 

determination that Hillerby was not entitled to § 2254 relief based on the state appeals 

court’s application of relevant federal law in affirming the denial of state postconviction 

relief.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7088 Doc: 14 Filed: 05/22/2023 Pg: 2 of 3
3

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7088 Doc: 14 Filed: 05/22/2023 Pg: 3 of 3
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7198

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

LEON DURWOOD HARVEY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CR-85-224-A)

Submitted: November 20, 1997 Decided: December 10, 1997

Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Leon Durwood Harvey, Appellant Pro Se. Karen Patrice Tandy, Assistant United States Attorney, Gordon Dean Kromberg, OFFICE OF THE

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, 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 orders denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997)

and denying his motion for reconsideration but correcting a typographical order. We have reviewed the record and the district

court's orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the

reasoning of the district court. United States v. Harvey, No. CR85-224-A (E.D. Va. July 16 and 30, 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
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0711

IN THE MATTER OF:

B.W.,

Respondent and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including September 22, 2023, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 16 2023

08/16/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0711
**Exhibit 32.1**

     **OFFICERS’ SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS**

The undersigned officer of New Concept Energy, Inc. (Formerly CabelTel International Corporation), a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), hereby certify that (i) the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) the        information contained in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company, at and for the periods indicated.

Dated: April 15, 2009

 

/s/ Gene S. Bertcher               

Gene S. Bertcher, Chief Executive

Officer and Chief Financial Officer
**EXHIBIT A**

**to the**

**Plan of Distribution of Class 2 Shares**

** **

** **

 

 

 

 

**EXHIBIT A**

**to the**

**Plan of Distribution of Class 4 Shares**

** **

** **

 

 

**EXHIBIT A**

**to the**

**Plan of Distribution of Class P1 Shares**

 

** **

** **

****

** **

****

**EXHIBIT A**

**to the**

**Plan of Distribution of Class P2 Shares**

 

** **

** **

 

** **
<PAGE>

                                EXHIBIT 23 (a)


                         Independent Auditors' Consent


     We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
33-64451 and 333-32132 on Form S-8 and in Registration Statements Nos. 33-61087,
333-5921, 333-18041, and 333-61993 on Form S-3 of our report dated March 7, 2000
(which expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph
relating to the Company's ability to continue as a going concern) appearing in
this Annual Report on Form 10-K of OXIS International, Inc. for the year ended
December 31, 1999.



DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Portland, Oregon

March 29, 2000