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

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           19636
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 26800
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      28899
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           11111
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             11018
<LOANS>                                         120360
<ALLOWANCE>                                       1369
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  218845
<DEPOSITS>                                      198364
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                               1526
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          7675
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  218845
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  11712
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                 4182
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 15894
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                3519
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                3519
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            12375
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      205
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  11547
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   3336
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                        3336
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      2201
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    $1.13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    $1.13
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.69
<LOANS-NON>                                       2464
<LOANS-PAST>                                         7
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                  1301
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                   1297
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                  1513
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      387
<RECOVERIES>                                        38
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                 1369
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                              1369
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 12-11670 

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:07-cr-20009-JEM-3

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

STEPHANIE JOHNSON, 

Defendant - Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(December 5, 2012)

Before HULL, PRYOR and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Case: 12-11670 Date Filed: 12/05/2012 Page: 1 of 3 
2

Stephanie Johnson appeals her sentence of 120 months of imprisonment, 

which was imposed after the district court reduced for the second time Johnson’s 

original sentence of 168 months of imprisonment. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). On 

Johnson’s motion, the district court sentenced her to the statutory minimum 

sentence in effect when she was first sentenced, but Johnson requested a greater

reduction based on the lower minimum sentence under the Fair Sentencing Act of 

2010. We affirm.

Johnson’s argument for a further reduction of her sentence is foreclosed by 

our recent decision in United States v. Berry, No. 12–11150 (11th Cir. Nov. 14, 

2012), that a defendant sentenced before the effective date of the Act is ineligible 

to have her sentence reduced. We held that the Act “is not a guidelines 

amendment by the Sentencing Commission, but rather a statutory change by 

Congress, and . . . does not serve as a basis for a . . . sentence reduction” under 

section 3582(c)(2). Id., slip op. at 4. Even if the Act could serve as a basis to 

reduce a sentence, we held in Berry that the lower mandatory minimum sentences 

did not apply retroactively to offenders sentenced before the effective date of the 

Act. Id. at 4–5. As explained by the Supreme Court in Dorsey v. United States,

567 U.S. ____, 132 S. Ct. 2321 (2012), “application of the new minimums to preAct offenders sentenced after August 3 create[d] a new set of disparities,” that was 

an inevitable consequence of any “new law changing sentences” and was 

Case: 12-11670 Date Filed: 12/05/2012 Page: 2 of 3 
3

consistent with “the ordinary practice . . . to apply new penalties to defendants not 

yet sentenced, while withholding that change from defendants already sentenced.” 

Id. at 2335. The district court did not err in denying Johnson’s motion to reduce 

her sentence below the statutory minimum in effect at her original sentencing.

We AFFIRM the denial of Johnson’s motion to reduce her sentence below 

the statutory minimum in effect at her original sentencing.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 12-11670 Date Filed: 12/05/2012 Page: 3 of 3
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 32.2


            CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                       AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, Jay W. Hobson, Vice President, Finance and, Chief Financial Officer of
Oretech, Inc. ("Company"), do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my
knowledge:

o        the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the period
         ending September 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
         Commission ("Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section
         13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
o        the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
         the Company.

Date:  November 18, 2003

 /s/ Jay W. Hobson
 -----------------
     Jay W. Hobson
Vice President, Finance and
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-60138

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

HAROLD W. ROBERTS, JR.

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 4:00-CR-14-1

Before GARWOOD, SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Harold W. Roberts, Jr., federal prisoner # 08901-055, was convicted of one

count of possessing marijuana with intent to distribute and in April 2001 was

sentenced to serve 120 months in prison. We affirmed the judgment of the

district court in August 2002. In February 2004 this court denied Roberts’s

request to file a successive section 2255 motion. 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

January 15, 2010

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

Case: 09-60138 Document: 00511005417 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/15/2010
No. 09-60138

2

The district court later denied the purported FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b) motion

that Roberts filed in July 2008 to challenge his sentence, and Roberts now

appeals that denial. He insists that he was improperly sentenced based on both

the marijuana and the crack cocaine that was involved with his offense and that

he should be resentenced.

Rule 60(b) provides relief only from judgments imposed in civil cases; Rule

60(b) “simply does not provide relief from a judgment in a criminal case.” United

States v. O’Keefe, 169 F.3d 281, 289 (5th Cir. 1999) (Dennis, J., dissenting from

grant of motion for temporary stay pending appeal); see also FED. R. CIV. P. 1

(limiting the scope of the rules of civil procedure to civil actions). Accordingly,

the district court did not err in concluding that Roberts could not invoke Rule

60(b) to challenge his sentence. 

Roberts’s Rule 60(b) motion is best construed as an unauthorized

successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion that the district court lacked jurisdiction to

consider. See Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 529-31 (2005); 28 U.S.C.

§ 2244(b)(3)(A), § 2255(h). Because this appeal is patently frivolous, we decline

to remand this case to the district court for a decision on whether a certificate

of appealability should issue and instead DISMISS this appeal for lack of

jurisdiction. See United States v. Alvarez, 210 F.3d 309, 310 (5th Cir. 2000).

Case: 09-60138 Document: 00511005417 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/15/2010
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3350 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3350

To amend the Small Business Act to increase the governmentwide goal for 
   the percentage of procurement contracts awarded to small business 
                   concerns, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 19, 2021

Mr. Neguse (for himself, Mr. Mfume, Ms. Salazar, Mr. Kim of New Jersey, 
and Mr. Phillips) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                    the Committee on Small Business

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Small Business Act to increase the governmentwide goal for 
   the percentage of procurement contracts awarded to small business 
                   concerns, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Small-business Procurement 
Utilization Reform Act'' or the ``SPUR Act''.

SEC. 2. INCREASE GOVERNMENTWIDE SMALL BUSINESS PROCUREMENT CONTRACT 
              GOAL.

    (a) In General.--Section 15(g)(1)(A)(i) of the Small Business Act 
(15 U.S.C. 644(g)(1)(A)(i)) is amended by striking ``23'' and inserting 
``25''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect on October 1, 2021.
                                 <all>
```
#### KEAS et al. v. KEAS et al.

No. 34682.

July 11, 1950.

*220 P. 2d 462.*

Spencer & Connolly, of Oklahoma City, for plaintiffs in error.

Jones & Wesner, of Cordell, for defendants in error.

GIBSON, J.

The trial court rendered a judgment quieting title on the 13th day of December, 1949. On the 15th day of December, 1949, the defendants filed a motion for new trial which was overruled on the 18th day of January, 1950, and at that time the defendants gave notice of intention to appeal.

A motion to dismiss has been filed for the reason that no notice of intention to appeal was given on the 13th day of December, or within ten days thereafter. The appeal must be dismissed.

In Miller & Glass et al. v. Tulsa Tribune Co., 174 Okla. 80, 49 P. 2d 726, it is stated:

> “Where a judgment on the pleadings is rendered, the party aggrieved thereby, desiring to appeal, must appeal from that judgment and give notice in open court either at the time or within ten days thereafter of his intention to appeal to the Supreme Court, as provided by section 531, O. S. 1931; and where he fails to give such notice within such time, this court is without jurisdiction to review the judgment of the trial court.”

To the same effect see Baxter v. Nix, 176 Okla. 589, 56 P. 2d 818; Rorem et al. v. Bodine et al., 178 Okla. 235, *26562 P. 2d 630; and Miller v. A. & B. Furniture Co., 173 Okla. 319, 48 P. 2d 1032.

The filing and determination of the motion for new trial did not extend the time in which to perfect the appeal. Koury v. Vogel, 191 Okla. 374, 130 P. 2d 93.

Since no notice of intention to appeal was given as provided by 12 O.S. 1941 §954, this court is without jurisdiction to determine the cause and the appeal is dismissed.

ARNOLD, V. C. J., and WELCH, CORN, LUTTRELL, HALLEY, and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Administration for Children and Families

Notice is hereby given that on January 19, 2001 the Director of Child Support Enforcement redelegated to the Deputy Commissioner of Child Support Enforcement, all the authorities delegated to the Deputy Director/Commissioner of Child Support Enforcement by the Director of Child Support Enforcement. This delegation is subject to any limitations or conditions contained in the delegations to the Deputy Director/Commissioner.

Dated: January 19, 2001.

Olivia A. Golden,

Director, Child Support Enforcement.

[FR Doc. 01-3114  Filed 2-6-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4184-01-M
EXHIBIT
23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING
FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in
Registration Statement Nos. 333-108744 and 333-121771 of The Warnaco
Group, Inc. on Form S-8 of our reports dated March 17, 2005, relating
to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement
schedule of The Warnaco Group, Inc. (the
"Company") and management's report of
the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, (which
report on the consolidated financial statements and financial statement
schedule expresses an unqualified opinion and includes explanatory
paragraphs relating to 1) the Company's plan of reorganization
and emergence from bankruptcy as a new entity on February 4, 2003, 2)
the restatement of the consolidated financial statements as of January
3, 2004 and for the year then ended, 3) a change in method of
accounting for defined benefit pension plans, and 4) a change in method
of accounting for goodwill and other intangible assets effective
January 5, 2002), appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of the
Company for the fiscal year ended January 1, 2005.

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

New York,
New YorkMarch 17, 2005

---
Order entered January 30, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-01342-CV

BAYLOR UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER, Appellant

V.

MARY GREESON, Appellee

On Appeal from the 44th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-13-07506

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s January 27, 2015 unopposed motion requesting

permission to supplement the record with a copy of the reporter’s record. We GRANT the 

motion TO THE EXTENT that we ORDER David Langford, Official Court Reporter for the 

44th Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas, to file the reporter’s record by 

FEBRUARY 10, 2015. See TEX. R. APP. P. 35.3(b). Appellant’s brief will be due twenty days 

after the date the reporter’s record is filed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a).

We DIRECT the Clerk of this Court to send a copy of this order by electronic 

transmission to David Langford and counsel for all parties.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
#### William ARELLANO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Angel MEDINA, Warden, and the Attorney General of the State of Colorado, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 13-1264.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Dec. 12, 2013.

William Arellano, Canon City, CO, pro se.

Ryan Crane, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Colorado, Denver, CO, for Respondents-Appellees.

Before HARTZ, O’BRIEN, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*

NEIL M. GORSUCH, Circuit Judge.

After his state court convictions for theft and burglary — and for qualifying as a “habitual criminal” under the terms of Colo. Rev.Stat. § 18-1.3-803(4)(b) after haring accumulated now so many felony convictions — William Arellano unsuccessfully pursued a direct appeal and collateral attack on his conviction and sentence in state court. None of that proved fruitful so he turned eventually to federal court, seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The federal district court assigned to his case, however, also denied relief. The court found that most of Mr. Arellano’s claims were procedurally defaulted and that the remaining claims failed on the merits. Now before us, Mr. Arellano seeks a certificate of appealability (“COA”) to undo this decision.

That we cannot provide. We may award a COA only if the petitioner makes a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To do that much, a petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists could debate whether his petition should have been resolved differently. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000). Even viewing his pleadings before us generously, however, Mr. Arellano does not meaningfully address, much less give us cause to debate, the district court’s procedural default or merits analy*913ses. The district court issued three separate orders in this case, spanning approximately 40 pages. After our independent review, we discern no error in its analysis, neither do we see what we might add usefully to what it has said. Accordingly, Mr. Arellano’s request for a COA is denied and this matter is dismissed. His request to proceed in forma pauperis is denied.

*

 This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R.App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 334 

To provide law enforcement agencies investigating the January 6th attack 

on the U.S. Capitol with the authority to require a company to disclose 

the beneficial owners of the company, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 15, 2021 

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York (for herself, Mr. MALINOWSKI, Mr. 

SCHIFF, Ms. VELA ́ZQUEZ, Mrs. MURPHY of Florida, Mr. O’HALLERAN, 

Ms. SPEIER, Mr. COOPER, Ms. KAPTUR, Ms. NORTON, Mr. HASTINGS, 

Mr. CASTEN, Ms. DEAN, Mr. FOSTER, Mr. LYNCH, Mrs. BEATTY, Mr. 

HIMES, Mrs. LURIA, Mr. GREEN of Texas, Mr. JONES, Mr. VARGAS, and 

Mr. BOWMAN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To provide law enforcement agencies investigating the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol with the authority 

to require a company to disclose the beneficial owners 

of the company, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Insurrection Financing 

5 Transparency Act of 2021’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 334 IH

1 SEC. 2. LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—A law enforcement agency may 

3 require a reporting company to provide the agency with 

4 a report that contains the information described in section 

5 5336(b)(2) of title 31, United States Code, if the law en6 forcement agency certifies to the reporting company that 

7 the report is required to carry out the agency’s investiga8 tion into the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol. 

9 (b) PENALTIES.—The penalties provided under sec10 tion 5336(h) of title 31, United States Code, shall apply 

11 to a violation of this section to the same extent as they 

12 apply to a violation of such section 5336. 

13 (c) DEFINITIONS.—The definitions provided in sec14 tion 5336(a) of title 31, United States Code, apply to this 

15 section. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Monday, December 22, 2014 Contact: John Arnold, Director

For Immediate Release Office of Public Affairs

Web site: www.fmcs.gov Phone: (202) 606-8100

 

FMCS Statement on Labor Negotiations 

Between the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) 

And the Pacific Maritime Association (PMA) 

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) 

announced today that it has received a request from representatives of the Pacific Maritime 

Association (PMA) to provide mediation services in the PMA’s continuing labor negotiations 

with the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) for a collective bargaining 

agreement covering all west coast ports. 

In accordance with its statutory responsibilities, the FMCS has been closely monitoring these 

negotiations for some time and has stood ready to provide mediation services at a moment’s 

notice. In light of PMA’s request, and consistent with the voluntary nature of the mediation 

process, FMCS mediators will promptly reach out to the parties to determine whether and when 

mediation assistance would be most valuable. 

Due to the sensitivity of the negotiations, the FMCS will have no further comment on this 

request and will not comment regarding the status or substance of the negotiations. 

### 

The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, created in 1947, is an independent U.S. government 

agency whose mission is to preserve and promote labor-management peace and cooperation. 

Headquartered in Washington, DC, with 10 district offices and 67 field offices, the agency provides 

mediation and conflict resolution services to industry, government agencies and communities.

NEWS RELEASE

FEDERAL MEDIATION AND CONCILIATION SERVICE 

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20427