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

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       4,124,163
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             9,450,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        29,828,287
<LOANS>                                     36,905,821
<ALLOWANCE>                                  (626,675)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              81,057,288
<DEPOSITS>                                  57,835,348
<SHORT-TERM>                                11,345,538
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            445,418
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        12,781
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              11,430,984
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              1,926,313
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            1,461,180
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             3,387,493
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           1,704,434
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             234,460
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        1,448,599
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  266,675
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                              58,219
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              1,501,238
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (261,095)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   (261,095)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (261,095)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.18
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             (626,675)
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            (626,675)
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         (462,083)
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                      (164,592)
        

</TABLE>
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 5D23-3340

LT Case No. 2009-CF-193-A

_____________________________

TIMMOTHY A. ZEIGLER,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Marion County.

Peter M. Brigham, Judge.

Timmothy A. Zeigler, Cross City, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Mitchell 

Sanders, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for 

Appellee.

February 6, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.315(a).

EISNAUGLE, HARRIS, and SOUD, JJ., concur.
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

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

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

No. 97-31078 Summary Calendar

CLEVELAND DUCOTE, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 95-CV-859

- - - - - - - - - - August 13, 1998 Before WISDOM, DUHE’, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Cleveland Ducote appeals the district court’s dismissal of his action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking review of the denial of his application for a period of disability, disability insurance benefits, and supplemental security income. Ducote argues that the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) erred in failing to find that his spinal compression fracture met one of the impairments listed in Appendix 1 of the Regulations, specifically the impairment listed in § 1.05(b)(1). Ducote has notNo. 97-31078 -2- demonstrated that his impairment meets the requirements of that section. See 20 C.F.R., Subpart P, Appendix 1, Part A § 1.05; see also Sullivan v. Zebley , 493 U.S. 521, 530 (1990). Ducote next argues that the ALJ erred in failing to find he was disabled by chronic back pain. The ALJ determined that Ducote’s subjective complaints of pain were not borne out by the medical evidence in the record. See Harper v. Sullivan , 887 F.2d 92, 96 (5th Cir. 1989). The ALJ’s assessment of Ducote’s subjective complaints of pain is therefore supported by substantial evidence. See Anthony v. Sullivan , 954 F.2d 289, 292 (5th Cir. 1992). Moreover, the ALJ did not err in relying on Ducote’s demeanor in assessing the credibility of his complaints of pain. Villa v. Sullivan , 895 F.2d 1019, 1024 (5th Cir. 1990). The ALJ likewise did not err in relying exclusively on the medical-vocational guidelines contained in § 201.24 of Appendix 2, Subpart P, Regulation No. 4 in reaching his decision that Ducote was not disabled. See Selders v. Sullivan , 914 F.2d 614, 618 (5th Cir. 1990). Thus, because the ALJ’s conclusion is supported by the substantial evidence and resulted from the application of proper legal standards, the district court’s decision to deny review and to dismiss Ducote’s complaint is affirmed. See Bowling v. Shalala , 37 F.3d 431, 434 (5th Cir. 1994).

AFFIRMED.
##### 



Exhibit 4(c) (vi)
 New
InterContinental Hotels Group PLC
 Registered Office: 67 Alma Road, Windsor, Berkshire, SL4 3HD
Registered Number: 5134420
  
  New
InterContinental Hotels Group PLC (the Company)
  IHG
      Admission
  1




---



##### 



IHG Group
 Service Agreement
  Signed
as a Deed byNew InterContinental Hotels Group PLC
    
    )acting by
    
    
    
    ))Director
    
    
    
    ))Secretary
    
    
    
    )
    
    /s/ R.T. WinterSigned as a Deed by
    
    
    
    )
    
    /s/ Richard SolomonsRichard Solomons
    
    
    
    ))In the presence of:
    
    
    
    )Witnesss signature
    
    
    
    )/s/ Renèe SassoonWitnesss name:RENÈE SASSOONWitnesss address:4 Newbury RoadNewbury ParkIlford, Essex, IG27HBWitnesss occupation:Personal Assistant
  2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM UNITED
AUSTRALIA/PACIFIC, INC.'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 2000 AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           3,199
<SECURITIES>                                   300,306
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,457
<ALLOWANCES>                                       551
<INVENTORY>                                      5,281
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               334,023
<PP&E>                                         381,960
<DEPRECIATION>                                 266,678
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 603,221
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           50,019
<BONDS>                                        657,118
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           178
<OTHER-SE>                                     217,184
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   603,221
<SALES>                                         42,547
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                42,547
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   51,587
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                24,770
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              19,670
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (44,189)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       816
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (50,558)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (43,373)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (2.44)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (2.44)


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                        59200000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                107000000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   1320000
<INVENTORY>                                   17300000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             248600000
<PP&E>                                      1677700000
<DEPRECIATION>                                53600000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              1911400000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        232000000
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   555500000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                1911400000
<SALES>                                      657500000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             657500000
<CGS>                                        416300000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                416300000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (8600000)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            34100000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              215700000
<INCOME-TAX>                                  79100000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          136600000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 136600000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.21
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                            1
<CURRENCY>                                     US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                          1
<CASH>                                              74,048
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,836,542
<ALLOWANCES>                                        40,000
<INVENTORY>                                      5,105,900
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,143,570
<PP&E>                                           3,599,150
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,963,377
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  13,829,613
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,296,691
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            30,434
<OTHER-SE>                                               0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    13,829,613
<SALES>                                          8,618,863
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,618,863
<CGS>                                            6,239,327
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   12,016,102
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    62,684
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 433,463
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (3,768,018)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (3,768,018)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (3,768,018)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        (1.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (1.24)
        


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 24****POWER OF ATTORNEY**     KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that each of the undersigned directors and/or officers ofTEXAS EASTERN PRODUCTS PIPELINE COMPANY, LLC (the “Company”), a Delaware limited liability company,acting in its capacity as general partner of TEPPCO Partners, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership(the “Partnership”), does hereby appoint WILLIAM G. MANIAS, his true and lawful attorney and agentto do any and all acts and things, and execute any and all instruments which, with the advice andconsent of Counsel, said attorney and agent may deem necessary or advisable to enable the Companyand Partnership to comply with the Securities Act of 1934, as amended, and any rules, regulations,and requirements thereof, to sign his name as a director and/or officer of the Company to the Form10-K Reportfor TEPPCO Partners, L.P. , each for the year ended December 31, 2006, and to any instrument ordocument filed as a part of, or in accordance with, each said Form 10-K or amendment thereto; andthe undersigned do hereby ratify and confirm all that said attorney and agent shall do or cause tobe done by virtue hereof.     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have subscribed these presents this 26th day ofFebruary, 2007.       /s/ MICHAEL B. BRACY   /s/ MURRAY H. HUTCHISON   Michael B. Bracy    Murray H. Hutchison  Director   Director         /s/ RICHARD S. SNELL   /s/ JERRY E. THOMPSON   Richard S. Snell    Jerry E. Thompson  Director   Director         /s/ WILLIAM G. MANIAS       William G. Manias      Vice President and      Chief Financial Officer
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN RE : DAVID BARRON,

Relator

. '

'

'

'

'

' No. 08

- 12

- 00302

- CR

A N ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

IN MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pending before the Court is a petition for writ of mandamus filed by David Barron, Relator

,

in which he complains that the 2 10 th District Court failed to set a bond after granting his motion

for new trial

. Respondent has since set a bond and Relator has filed a motion to withdraw his

petition for wr it of mandamus. We therefore dismiss Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus as

moot. See In re Woods , 261 S.W.3d 340, 341 (Tex.App.

– Waco 2008, orig. proceeding ); In re

Jaramillo , 164 S.W.3d 774, 775 (Tex.App.

– Texarkana 2005, orig. proceeding).

GUADALUPE RIVERA, Justice

October 31, 2012

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, J., and Antcliff, J.

(Do Not Publish)
Exhibit 99.1



     Certification pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



      I, Marshall W. Pagon, the Chief Executive Officer of Pegasus Satellite
Communications, Inc., hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Form 10-Q of Pegasus Satellite
Communications, Inc. for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2003 (the "March
31, 2003 Form 10-Q"), which this certification accompanies, fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and information contained in the March 31, 2003
Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of Pegasus Satellite Communications, Inc.

      A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Pegasus Satellite Communications, Inc. and will be retained by
Pegasus Satellite Communications, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

Dated:  May 14, 2003


                                     /s/ Marshall W. Pagon
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                     Marshall W. Pagon
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 Annual Report of Birch Branch, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB/A for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael
L. Schumacher, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial 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 2002, to the best of my knowledge:


(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d),
as applicable, of the Securities and 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.


 /s/ Michael Schumacher
---------------------------------------------
Michael L. Schumacher
President, Treasurer, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
April 15, 2007


<PAGE>
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND

#### Richmond Memorial Hospital v. City of Richmond

August 15, 2002

Case No. LF-20-1

By Judge Melvin R. Hughes, Jr.

This day came the parties, by counsel, on Defendant City of Richmond’s Motion to Vacate Order. Upon consideration whereof, it appearing that this Court issued a letter opinion dated June 13,2001,  and entered a final order on August 16,2001, in the above-styled matter; and the City noted an appeal from the decision in this case and the Virginia Supreme Court issued a writ granting the appeal and, before oral argument to the Supreme Court, the parties reached a settlement. The terms of said settlement indicated that the City might seek an order from this Court vacating the opinion and order previously issued by this Court; and, as provided in the settlement agreement, Plaintiff Richmond Memorial Hospital does not join the City in its motion seeking to have the said opinion and order vacated, but Richmond Memorial Hospital agreed that it would not oppose any such motion or efforts so long as they are not inconsistent with the other terms of this settlement, and, in accordance with said settlement, a motion was filed and the Supreme Court ordered the case remanded to this Court for further proceedings, and, upon representation by counsel that Plaintiff Richmond Memorial Hospital does not oppose vacating the opinion and order, it is therefore adjudged, ordered, and decreed that the opinion and final order previously issued by this Court in *368the above-styled case are vacated as moot and this matter is hereby dismissed with prejudice and shall be stricken from the Court’s docket.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Respondent 

 v. 

MICHAEL W. TROLLINGER, 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 892 MAL 2015 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 10th day of August, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

ALEJANDRO ALEX INCERA, AKA

Alexander Jiminez

- Incera,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 21

- 10335

D.C. No.

2:18

- cr

- 00169

- JCM

- NJK

- 2

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 15, 2022 * *

Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and FORREST , Circuit Judges.

Alejandro Alex Incera appeals from the district court’s order denying his

motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Incera contends that the district court should have granted his motion

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

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

# FILED

JUN 27 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 21

- 10335

because his history of Guillain

- Barre syndrome (“GBS”) , in combination with his

other medical conditions and his mother’s recent cancer diagnosis , constitute an

extraordinary and compel ling reason for compassionate release. The district court

did not abuse its discretion in finding otherwise. See United States v. Aruda , 993

F.3d 797, 799 (9th Cir. 2021). As the court explained, Incera’s history of GBS did

not justify his refusal to be vaccinated because the Center s for Disease Control and

Prevention recommends vaccination for those who have had GBS. Moreover, the

record does not support Incera’s assertion that he has other medical issues

, such as

asthma. Finally

, the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the

developments with Incera’s mother did not constitute an extraordinary and

compelling reason to grant relief

.

AFFIRMED.