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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>I


</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000

<S>                                        <C>                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    YEAR                 YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997         DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997         DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                             139                 634
<SECURITIES>                                         0                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,574               2,990
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (118)               (103)
<INVENTORY>                                          0               2,281
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 6,066               6,945
<PP&E>                                           9,104               7,938
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (4,558)             (4,003)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  12,481              12,946
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,050               3,015
<BONDS>                                              0                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                   0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                   0
<COMMON>                                         3,873               3,862
<OTHER-SE>                                     (2,655)                 197
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    12,481              12,946
<SALES>                                              0                   0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                32,027              30,525
<CGS>                                                0                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   18,402              17,349
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                16,761              14,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (597)               (320)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,748)              (1,206)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (896)                (487)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,852)                (719)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                   0
<CHANGES>                                            0                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,852)                (719)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.43)               (0.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.43)               (0.11)



</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3227 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3227

 To repeal the military surplus program under title 10, United States 
                                 Code.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 13, 2021

Ms. Velazquez (for herself, Ms. Pingree, Ms. Norton, Ms. Pressley, Mr. 
   Pocan, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Espaillat, Ms. Bush, Mr. McGovern, Ms. 
  Castor of Florida, Ms. Tlaib, Ms. Omar, Ms. Lee of California, Ms. 
  Clarke of New York, Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney of New York, Ms. Ocasio-
Cortez, Mr. Khanna, and Mr. Beyer) introduced the following bill; which 
            was referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To repeal the military surplus program under title 10, United States 
                                 Code.

    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 ``Demilitarizing Local Law Enforcement 
Act of 2021''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE SUPPORT TO LAW ENFORCEMENT 
              AGENCIES.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 153 of title 10, United States Code, is 
amended by striking section 2576a.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of 
such chapter is amended by striking the item relating to section 2576a.
                                 <all>
```
### IN THE UNI TED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCUIT

No. 11-40447 Summary Calendar

BOBBY LUCKY, Plaintiff-Appellant

v. KELLI WARD; RICHARD A. TRINCI, JR.; CHUMA ANADUAKA; KATHRYN ANN BELL; DOCTOR BRUCE SMITH; AND JANE DOE, Defendants-Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 3:05-CV-166
Before BENAVIDES, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Bobby Lucky, formerly Texas prisoner # 1048046, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Kelli Ward, Richard A. Trinci, Jr., Chuma Anaduaka, Kathryn Ann Bell, Dr. Bruce Smith, and Jane Doe. The district court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and denied Lucky’s motion under Rule 59(e) of the Federal rules of Civil Procedure. This court af f irmed the district court judgment. U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Janu ary25 , 20 12 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court hasd ete rm inedthat thisop inion sho uld not * be publish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-40447 Document: 00511735593 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/25/2012No. 11-40447

More than a year later, Lucky filed in the district court a new motion for reconsideration or a rehearing, arguing that the district court erred in granting summary judgment for the defendants because the defendants failed to submit suf f i c i e nt affidavits, the trial court failed to issue a scheduling order which caused him to miss hi s opportunity to respond to the motion for summary judgment, and he was impeded in responding by the State of Texas. The district court denied the motion, noting that it had ruled on some of Lucky’s arguments when it ruled on his Rule 59(e) motion a n d th at this court had affirmed its judgment on the matter. Lucky now appeals, arguing only reasons why the district court erred in granting summary judgment. He has identified no error in the district court’s denial of his new motion for reconsideration. Although pro se briefs are liberally construed, even pro se litigants must brief arguments in order to preserve them. Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). Failure to identify any error in the district court’s analysis is the same as if the appellant had not appealed the judgment. Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy SheriffAbner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 11-40447 Document: 00511735593 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/25/2012
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 243 (Tuesday, December 18, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 65216]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-31044]



[[Page 65216]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; 
Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meetings.
    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive 
and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel.
    Date: January 7, 2002.
    Time: 3 PM to 4:30 PM.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: 2 Democracy Plaza, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Room 754, 
Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Lakshmanan Sankaran, PHD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, Room 754, 6707 Democracy 
Boulevard, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892-6600, 
(301) 594-7799.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive 
and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel.
    Date: January 8, 2002.
    Time: 8 PM to 5 PM.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Courtyard By Marriott, 2899 Jefferson Davis Highway, 
Arlington, VA 22203,
    Contact Person: Neal A. Musto, PHD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, Room 750, 6707 Democracy 
Boulevard, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892-6600, 
(301) 594-7798, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#dfb2aaacabb0b19fbaa7abadbef1b1b6bbbbb4f1b1b6b7f1b8b0a9"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="620f1711160d0c22071a1610034c0c0b0606094c0c0b0a4c050d14">[email protected]</span></a>.
(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.847, 
Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive 
Diseases and Nutrition Research; 93.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology 
and Hematology Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: December 10, 2001.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 01-31044 Filed 12-17-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# FILED March 6, 1998 Cecil W. Crowson Appellate Cou rt Clerk 

## IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

VAN ADRIAN BARKER, ) ) Plaintiff/Appell

ant, )

) Sumner Chancery VS. ) No. 96D-72 ) PATSY LOU (RANDOLPH) ) Appeal No. SLEDD BARKER, ) 01A01-9704-CH-00192 ) Defendant/Appellee. )



## CONCURRING OPIN

ION
Iconcur with the cour

t’s opinion

for tw o reasons. First, the expenses ass ociatedwith the upkeep of the Gail Drive house w

ere more than off

-set b y th e rental income from the house. Second, the increase in the value of the house was due, not to Mr. Barker’s contribu tions to the maint enance of the house wh ich w ere de minimis, but to the ap

preciation in the val

ue of real propert

y in general.

_______________________________ WILLIAM C. KOCH, JR., JUDGE
#### Rohaji D. DALE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lance P. FORSYTHE, Superintendent; Doctor Ofogh, Doctor; Gene Johnson, Director of Prisons; Christy Gray, LPN Nurse; Erica Powell, EMT Worker; C.E. Davis, Warden; Dr. M. Militana, Doctor; Doctor Hercules, Doctor, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 10-7294.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 18, 2010.

Decided: Dec. 2, 2010.

Rohaji D. Dale, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa H. Leiner, Harman, Claytor, Corrigan & Wellman, Richmond, Virginia; Richard Carson Vorhis, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia; Jeff W. Rosen, Pender & Coward, PC, Virginia Beach, Virginia; Lloyd Lee Byrd, Ruth Griggs, Sands Anderson, PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Rohaji Dale appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Dale v. Forsythe,*No. 2:09-cv-00624-MSD-DEM (E.D.Va. Aug. 17, 2010). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"cmoran","title":"FMC Announces Hearing on Shipping Conditions in the Red Sea - Federal Maritime Commission","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"0AurmND85G\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/articles\/fmc-announces-hearing-on-shipping-conditions-in-the-red-sea\/\">FMC Announces Hearing on Shipping Conditions in the Red Sea<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/articles\/fmc-announces-hearing-on-shipping-conditions-in-the-red-sea\/embed\/#?secret=0AurmND85G\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“FMC Announces Hearing on Shipping Conditions in the Red Sea” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"0AurmND85G\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"The Federal Maritime Commission will hold an informal public hearing on February 7, 2024, to examine how conditions in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden regions are impacting commercial shipping and global supply chains. The hearing will allow stakeholders in the supply chain to communicate with the Commission how operations have been disrupted by […]","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/seal_final_sm.jpg","thumbnail_width":300,"thumbnail_height":293}
#### Efren Lopez GAMBOA Petitioner-Appellant, v. Maggie MILLER-STOUT, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 07-35050.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 20, 2008.*

Filed May 27, 2008.

Efren Lopez Gamboa, Airway Heights, WA, pro se.

Gregory J. Rosen, Esq., Office Of The Washington Attorney General, Criminal Justice Division, Olympia, WA, for Respondent-Appellee.

*570Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Thomas S. Zilly, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-06-01143-TSZ.

Before: PREGERSON, TASHIMA, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Washington state prisoner Efren Lopez Gamboa appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as second or successive. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

As an initial matter, we reject Lopez Gamboa’s contention that 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) does not apply to petitions challenging state prison administrative decisions. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). Furthermore, we conclude that the district court properly dismissed Lopez Gamboa’s federal habeas petition as second or successive without authorization. See *id; Babbitt v. Woodford,*177 F.3d 744, 745-47 (9th Cir.1999).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### Jesse LANGSTON, Plaintiff-Appellant v. James M. LEBLANC, Secretary of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections (DOC); N. Burl Cain, Warden of the Louisiana State Penitentiary (LSP); Trey Poret, Assistant Warden; Unknown Whitaker, Captain; Donnell Sullivan, Captain; Samantha Angelle, Lieutenant; Trent Barton, Major; David Kelone, Lieutenant, Colonel; Cassandra Temple, Major; David Duncan, Sergeant; Earnest Griffin, Sergeant; Unknown Piazza, Master/Sergeant; Unknown Polygraph Examiner; Randolph Beaubouef, Captain, Defendants-Ap-pellees.

No. 10-30377

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 1, 2010.

*977Jesse Langston, Angola, LA, pro se.

Before KING, BENAVIDES, and ELROD, Circuit Judgs.

PER CURIAM: *

Jesse Langston, Louisiana prisoner # 501703, has filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. The district court dismissed Lang-ston’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as legally frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The district court denied Langston’s motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal and certified, for the reasons stated in the magistrate judge’s report, that the appeal was not taken in good faith. By moving for leave to proceed IFP on appeal, Langston is challenging the district court’s certification. *See Baugh v. Taylor,*117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir.1997).

Langston’s IFP motion addresses only his indigence. He does not brief any argument regarding the dismissal of his § 1983 complaint or the reasons for the district court’s certification decision. Failure to identify any error in the district court’s analysis is the same as if the appellant had not appealed the judgment. *Brinlcmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner,*813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.1987). Although pro se briefs are liberally construed, even pro se litigants must brief arguments in order to preserve them. *Yohey v. Collins,*985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir.1993).

Langston has not shown that the district court’s certification that an appeal would not be taken in good faith was incorrect. The instant appeal is therefore without arguable merit and frivolous. Accordingly, Langston’s request for IFP status is denied, and his appeal is dismissed. *See Howard v. King,*707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Langston is cautioned that the dismissal of his § 1983 suit by the district court pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and our dismissal of this appeal as frivolous both count as strikes under § 1915(g). *See Adepegba v. Ham-mons,*103 F.3d 383, 385-87 (5th Cir.1996). Langston is also cautioned that if he accumulates three strikes under § 1915(g), he may not proceed IFP 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).

MOTION DENIED; 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.
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 40577

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

FERNANDO CORTES-PONCE,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 690

Filed: October 2, 2013

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED 

OPINION AND SHALL NOT 

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada

County. Hon. Patrick H. Owen, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of twelve years, with five years 

determinate, for trafficking in cocaine, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Jason C. Pintler, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GUTIERREZ, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge;

and GRATTON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Fernando Cortes-Ponce pled guilty to trafficking in cocaine, Idaho Code 

§§ 37-2732B(a)(2) and 18-204. The district court sentenced Cortes-Ponce to a unified term of 

twelve years, with five years determinate. Cortes-Ponce appeals, contending his sentence is 

excessive.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court's discretion. Both our standard of review and the 

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and 

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 

1014-15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 

1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing 
2

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record 

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Cortes-Ponce’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.