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

<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                      10,678,443
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          94,390
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 25,589,624
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         600,000
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           600,000
<LOANS>                                    113,025,336
<ALLOWANCE>                                  1,616,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             151,401,448
<DEPOSITS>                                 115,483,398
<SHORT-TERM>                                 6,233,770
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            386,970
<LONG-TERM>                                 12,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           16,751
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  17,280,559
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             151,401,448
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              4,004,987
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              868,581
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               100,305
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             4,973,873
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           2,286,086
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,706,784
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        2,267,089
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  346,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                            (13,589)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              1,531,758
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                466,862
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     467,050
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   467,050
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .28
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.97
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             1,270,000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            1,616,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         1,300,221
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        315,779


</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 4


                       Service Systems International, Ltd.
                         Computation of Per-Share Income
                              Treasury Stock Method
                            As Modified for 20% Test

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                            Period Ended May 31, 2000
                                                            -------------------------
                                                                   Nine Months
                                                                   -----------

<S>                                                                <C>
Weighted average number of shares outstanding                       17,081,188
                                                                   -----------


Total common and common equivalent shares                           22,206,712
                                                                   ===========


Net income (loss) for the period                                   $  (957,080)
                                                                   ===========





Total common and common equivalent shares                           22,206,712
                                                                   ===========


Loss per common and common equivalent shares                       $    (0.04)
                                                                   ==========
</TABLE>







Earnings per share:

The earnings per share is computed by dividing the net income (loss) for the
period by the weighted average number of common shares outstanding for the
period. Common stock equivalents are excluded from the computation if their
effect would be anti-dilutive.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

**JANE DOES 1-5, AND INTERVENOR,**

**Appellants**

**v.**

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, AND** 

**PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS AND PRACTICES COMMISSION,** 

**Appellees :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 71 MAP 2015** 

**Appeal from the Order of the**

**Commonwealth Court at No. 65 MD 2015 dated July 21, 2015.** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM DECIDED: April 25, 2016

AND NOW, **this 25 th**  **day of April, 2016, the order of the Commonwealth C ourt is** 

**AFFIRMED.**
# **EXHIBIT 32.2**

# ** **

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

** **

Inconnection with the March 31, 2008 Form 10-Q of Cornell Companies, Inc.(the “Company”) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”), I, John R. Nieser, Chief Financial Officer, certifypursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-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. |

 
|   | /s/  John R. Nieser                                                          |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | John  R. Nieser, Senior Vice President,Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer |
|   | May 12,  2008                                                           |

 

Note:  The certification the registrant furnishes inthis exhibit is not deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise subject to theliabilities of that Section. Registration Statements or other documents filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission shall not incorporate this exhibit,except as otherwise stated in such filing.

 

----
#### John ADI, Plaintiff-Appellant v. MANAGEMENT & TRAINING CORPORATION; Larry Joe Rasbeary, Ex-Warden; Kerry Dixon, Warden, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 07-11139

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 19, 2008.

John Adi, Post, TX, pro se.

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

John Adi, federal prisoner # 24680-079, filed a pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleging that he was unlawfully incarcerated against his will and without a valid judicial commitment order. The district court sua sponte dismissed Adi’s complaint for failure to state a claim, finding that Adi’s claims necessarily implicated the validity of his confinement and were barred by *Heck v. Humphrey,*512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). A dismissal for failure to state a claim is reviewed de novo. *Black v. Warren,*134 F.3d 732, 733-34 (5th Cir.1998).

Although Adi attempts to couch his challenge to his confinement in terms of unconstitutional state administrative action, such a challenge is “just as close to the core of habeas corpus as an attack on the prisoner’s conviction, for it goes directly to the constitutionality of his physical confinement itself and seeks either immediate release from that confinement or the shortening of its duration.” *Preiser v. Rodriguez,*411 U.S. 475, 489, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973). Because Adi’s claims clearly implicate the duration and fact of his confinement, as opposed to the procedures affecting his confinement, and because he has not alleged that his conviction or sentence has been reversed or expunged, his claims are barred by *Heck. See Heck,*512 U.S. at 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364; *Cook v. Texas Dep’t of Criminal Justice Transitional Planning Dep’t,*37 F.3d 166, 168 (5th Cir.1994).

Adi has not shown that the district court erred in dismissing his complaint for failure to state a claim. Adi’s appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous. *See Howard v. King,*707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.1983); *see also Hamilton v. Lyons,*74 F.3d 99, 102 (5th Cir.1996)(stating that a § 1983 claim which falls under the rule in *353*Heck*is legally frivolous). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is dismissed. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2. Adi is cautioned that the dismissal of this appeal as frivolous counts as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), as does the district court’s dismissal of his complaint for failure to state a claim. *See Adepegba v. Hammons,*103 F.3d 383, 385-87 (5th Cir.1996). We caution Adi that once he accumulates three strikes, he may not proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. *See*§ 1915(g). Adi should review any pending appeals and withdraw any that are frivolous.

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
**Exhibit
      32**




**CERTIFICATION**




By
      signing below, each of the undersigned officers hereby certifies pursuant to
      18
      U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002, that, to his or her knowledge, (i) this report fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
      and (ii) the information contained in this report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of River
      Valley Bancorp.




Signed
      this 14th day of November, 2007.





/s/
                Matthew P. Forrester
            
            /s/
                Vickie L. GrimesMatthew
                P. Forrester
            
            Vickie
                L. GrimesPresident
                and Chief Executive Officer
            
            Vice
                President of Finance
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RONALD NORDSTROM, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

GEOFF DEAN, Ventura County Sheriff, 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-55901 

D.C. No. 2:15-cv-07607-DMGFFM 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Dolly M. Gee, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 23, 2017**

Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges 

Ronald Nordstrom appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 

42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a violation of his Second Amendment rights. We 

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Mashiri v. Epsten Grinnell & Howell, 845 F.3d 984, 988 

 

* 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

NOV 8 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 16-55901 

(9th Cir. 2017). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Nordstrom’s Second Amendment 

claim because “the Second Amendment does not protect, in any degree, the 

carrying of concealed firearms by members of the general public.” Peruta v. 

County of San Diego, 824 F.3d 919, 942 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc).

AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 184 (Monday, September 25, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44640-44641]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20455]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-3384-EM; Docket ID FEMA-2017-0001]


Puerto Rico; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of an Emergency 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for 
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (FEMA-3384-EM), dated September 5, 
2017, and related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued September 18, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and 
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the incident 
period for this emergency is closed effective September 7, 2017.
    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, 
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis 
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster 
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance 
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and 
Households In Presidentially

[[Page 44641]]

Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster 
Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and 
Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to 
Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--
Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, 
Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Brock Long,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2017-20455 Filed 9-22-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determine d that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-20011

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOHN NEST, a.k.a.

Francisco Perez

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. CR-94-285-2

October 23, 1996

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

John Nest, Texas prisoner # 66527-079, appeals the district

court’s order denying his “Motion for Order to Remission [sic] of

Fine.” This court finds that it can not construe Nest’s motion in

any way that allows review or relief.

This court will not review this as a po st-judgment criminal

motion. Nest does not argue that his motion should be interpreted

this way. Furthermore, we will not interpret it as such because2

the motion itself does not seek a judgment of acquittal, Rule

29(c), request a new trial, Rule 33, challenge the indictment or

jurisdiction, Rule 34, or ask for correction of a clerical mistake,

Rule 36. Even if we were to interpret it as a post-judgment

criminal motion, Nest filed his motion more than ten days after the

district court entered judgment. F E D

. R. A PP

. P. 4(b). As Nest has

not argued for an extension of time due to excusable neglect in

filing, id. , the motion is not timely.

This court can not review Nest’s motion as a § 2241 habeas

corpus petition. Nest is incarcerated in Fairtown, New Jersey.

However, Nest filed his motion in the Southern District of Texas.

A § 2241 motion must be brought in the district in which a prisoner

is incarcerated; if not, the court lacks jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241; Bell v. United States

, 48 F.3d 104 2, 1043-44 (5th Cir.

1995).

We also can not consider Nest’s motion as a prisoner’s civil

rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. It is possible that Nest

might be able to articulate a valid § 1983 claim if he could state

facts showing that the prison was forcing him to do without certain

basic human necessities, so as to “threaten [his] health and safety

and deprive [him] of basic hygiene and medical treatment . . . .”

See Williams v. Edwards

, 547 F.2d 1206, 1215 (5th Cir. 1977).

However, because Nest has never filed any pleading against the3

prison warden or any other prison staff, no § 198 3 claim is

currently before this court.

Finally, reviewing Nest’s motion as a motion to vacate, set

aside, or co rrect sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, we are

unable to offer Nest relief. Nest’s motion does not challenge his

confinement, but only the amount of his fine. Such a motion is not

within the ambit of § 2255. U nited States v. Segler

, 37 F.3d 1131,

1137 (5th Cir. 1994) (holding that Congress “meant to limit the

types of claims cognizable under § 2255 to claims relating to

unlawful custody”); United States v. Gaudet

, 81 F.3d 585, 592 (5th

Cir . 1996). The district court thus correctly dismissed this

motion.

AFFIRMED.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, October 08, 2019.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, October 08, 2019

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A20I0051. AMERICAN RELIABLE INSURANCE COMPANY v. CHARLIE OTIS 

LANCASTER et al. .

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of 

this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record 

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

2017V0284
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3013 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3013

                  To prohibit assistance to Pakistan.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 22, 2011

 Mr. Poe of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                    the Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                  To prohibit assistance to Pakistan.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Pakistan Accountability Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON ASSISTANCE TO PAKISTAN.

    (a) Prohibition.--Except as provided in subsection (b), assistance 
may not be provided to Pakistan under any provision of law.
    (b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply with respect to 
assistance to ensure the security of nuclear weapons.
    (c) Effective Date.--This Act shall take effect on the date of the 
enactment of this Act and shall apply with respect to amounts allocated 
for assistance to Pakistan that are unexpended on or after such date.
                                 <all>
```
II 

Calendar No. 381 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3248 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 16, 2012 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

APRIL 25, 2012 

Reported by Mr. LIEBERMAN, without amendment 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 112 South 5th Street in Saint Charles, Missouri, as the ‘‘Lance Corporal Drew W. Weaver 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. LANCE CORPORAL DREW W. WEAVER POST OF4 FICE BUILDING. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at 112 South 5th Street in Saint 

7 Charles, Missouri, shall be known and designated as the 

8 ‘‘Lance Corporal Drew W. Weaver Post Office Building’’. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3248 RS

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

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

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Lance Corporal Drew 

5 W. Weaver Post Office Building’’. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 381 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3248 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostDrew W. Weaver Post Office Building’’. Saint Charles, Missouri, as the ‘‘Lance Corporal al Service located at 112 South 5th Street in 

APRIL 25, 2012 

Reported without amendment 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS