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

<ARTICLE> 9
<CIK> 0000825953
<NAME> FIDELITY BANCSHARES (N.C.), INC.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                      50,118,929
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       6,343,765
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             6,500,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  6,543,197
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                     144,777,383
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                       142,364,430
<LOANS>                                    592,821,488
<ALLOWANCE>                                  6,028,024
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             858,440,386
<DEPOSITS>                                 732,210,126
<SHORT-TERM>                                23,351,627
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          7,099,323
<LONG-TERM>                                 23,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     6,902,616
<OTHER-SE>                                  65,876,694
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             858,440,386
<INTEREST-LOAN>                             26,886,128
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            5,032,245
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               341,062
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            32,259,435
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                          12,841,187
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          14,297,147
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                       17,962,288
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                1,125,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                             13,687,484
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              6,441,264
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   6,441,264
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 4,101,176
<EPS-BASIC>                                     145.59
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   145.59
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.75
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             5,141,647
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  932,687
<RECOVERIES>                                   694,064
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            6,028,024
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         6,028,024
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        363,872


</TABLE>
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

WAYNE THOMAS ANDERSON, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D18-2886

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed September 27, 2019.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for 

Hillsborough County; Kimberly K. 

Fernandez, Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public 

Defender, and Robert D. Rosen, 

Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for 

Appellant. 

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Peter Koclanes, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, 

for Appellee. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

CASANUEVA, ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, and SMITH, JJ., Concur.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov","title":"Performance and Accountability Report (PAR) - Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"BIJy7ScH3g\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov\/performance-and-accountability-report\/\">Performance and Accountability Report (PAR)<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov\/performance-and-accountability-report\/embed\/#?secret=BIJy7ScH3g\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Performance and Accountability Report (PAR)” — Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service\" data-secret=\"BIJy7ScH3g\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/* <![CDATA[ *\/\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\/* ]]> *\/\n<\/script>\n","description":"FMCS FY2023 Performance and Accountability Report (PAR) FMCS FY2022 Performance and Accountability Report (PAR) FMCS FY2021 Performance and Accountability Report (PAR)"}
#### Robert Earl TIPPENS, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Commonwealth of VIRGINIA, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 15-7475.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 14, 2016.

Decided: Jan. 20, 2016.

Robert Earl Tippens, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Rosemary Virginia Bourne, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Robert Earl Tippens, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition and motion to reconsider. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of ap-pealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

*152We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Tippens has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Tippens’ motion for transcripts at Government expense, 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.*
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 28, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-20876 

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

TERRYLON MCDANIEL,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:00-CR-870-ALL

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

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Terrylon

McDaniel has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as

required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). McDaniel

has not filed a response. 

This court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction on its

own motion if necessary. Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th

Cir. 1987). Article III, § 2 of the Constitution limits federal 

court jurisdiction to actual cases and controversies. Spencer v.

Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998). The case-or-controversy requirement
No. 04-20876

-2-

demands that “some concrete and continuing injury other than

the now-ended incarceration or parole -- some ‘collateral

consequence’ of the conviction -- must exist if the suit is to be

maintained.” Id.

McDaniel has served the sentence that was imposed upon the

revocation of her supervised release. The order revoking

McDaniel’s term of supervised release imposed no further term of

supervised release. Accordingly, there is no case or controversy

for this court to address, and the appeal is dismissed as moot. 

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is denied as unnecessary. 

MOTION DENIED AS UNNECESSARY; APPEAL DISMISSED.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of -- ) 

) 

Daelim Industrial Company, Ltd. ) 

) 

Under Contract No. W912UM-13-C-0020 ) 

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA No. 59885 

Christopher A. Wright, Esq. 

Camey Bradley Spellman 

Seattle, WA 

Christine J. Lee, Esq. 

Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald, LLP 

Seattle, WA 

Thomas J. Warren, Esq. 

Acting Engineer Chief Trial Attorney 

Robert M. Sundberg, Esq. 

Paul L. Huhtanen, Esq. 

Engineer Trial Attorneys 

U.S. Army Engineer District, Far East 

Seoul, Korea 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

Following a successful mediation on 23-26 August 2016 in Seoul, Republic of 

Korea, the dispute underlying this appeal has been settled. The parties were allowed the 

necessary time to fulfill the requirements of the settlement agreement, and are 

commended for their efforts. The "Joint Motion to Dismiss the Proceedings with 

Prejudice" dated 22 February 2018, states that the "Government has paid the settlement 

amount and accrued interest to Daelim in accordance with the terms of the Settlement 

Agreement." We grant the parties' motion and dismiss this appeal with prejudice. 

Dated: 7 March 2018 

Administrative 

REBAPAG~ 

~ Judge 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 
I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 59885, Appeal of Daelim Industrial 

Company, Ltd., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

2 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3249 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3249

 To codify the policy of Executive Order 13950 (relating to combating 
          race and sex stereotyping), and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 14, 2021

 Mr. Hice of Georgia (for himself, Mr. Norman, Ms. Herrell, Mr. Bishop 
 of North Carolina, Mr. Gosar, Mr. Gibbs, Mr. Babin, Mr. Grothman, Mr. 
  LaMalfa, Mr. Fallon, and Mr. Clyde) introduced the following bill; 
      which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To codify the policy of Executive Order 13950 (relating to combating 
          race and sex stereotyping), 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 ``Contents of Our Character Act of 
2021''.

SEC. 2. FEDERAL FUNDING LIMITATION.

    (a) In General.--No Federal funds may be used by any Federal 
official or agency to adopt, fund, require, or promote any policy, 
activity or entity that promotes employee training or educational 
programs or activities that promote race or sex stereotyping or 
scapegoating.
    (b) Race or Sex Stereotyping or Scapegoating Defined.--For the 
purposes of this Act, the term ``race or sex stereotyping or 
scapegoating'' consists of the following list of prohibited divisive 
concepts:
            (1) One race or sex is inherently superior to another race 
        or sex.
            (2) The United States is fundamentally racist or sexist.
            (3) An individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, is 
        inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously 
        or unconsciously.
            (4) An individual should be discriminated against or 
        receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of his or 
        her race or sex.
            (5) Members of one race or sex cannot and should not 
        attempt to treat others without respect to race or sex.
            (6) An individual's moral character is necessarily 
        determined by his or her race or sex.
            (7) An individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, 
        bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other 
        members of the same race or sex.
            (8) Any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, 
        or any other form of psychological distress on account of his 
        or her race or sex.
            (9) Meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are 
        racist or sexist, or were created by a particular race to 
        oppress another.
                                 <all>
```
#### William M. WINDSOR, Appellant v. Orinda EVANS, Judge, et al., Appellees.

No. 10-5177.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Dec. 28, 2010.

William M. Windsor, Marietta, GA, pro se.

R. Craig Lawrence, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Washington, DC, for Appellees.

BEFORE: GINSBURG, TATEL, and BROWN, Circuit Judges.

*JUDGMENT*

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s March 26, 2010, order enjoining appellant from submitting any additional filings in the case and from filing any new complaints in the district court be vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with *In re Powell,*851 F.2d 427, 431 (D.C.Cir.1988).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.
Order filed June 13, 2013 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-13-00093-CV

____________

REBECCA ANN BURGIN, Appellant

V.

JAMES BRENT BURGIN, Appellee

On Appeal from the 434th Judicial District Court

Fort Bend County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 06-DCV-152401

O R D E R

Appellant’s brief was due May 23, 2013. No brief or motion for extension 

of time has been filed. 

Unless appellant submits her brief, and a motion reasonably explaining why 

the brief was late, to the clerk of this court on or before July 15, 2013, the court 

will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b). 

PER CURIAM
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.                  

###### Environmental Protection Agency

          - 40 CFR Part 80
          - [FRL-7119-1]
          - RIN 2060-AJ79

# AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

# ACTION:

Proposed rule; correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        This document corrects the preamble to a proposed rule published in the                         **Federal Register**                         of December 3, 2001, regarding establishment of a new compliance date for the reformulated gasoline program. This correction clarifies when and where a public hearing would be held if a hearing is requested.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For further information about this correction, contact Chris McKenna, Chemical Engineer, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Transportation and Regional Programs Division, at (202) 564-9037 or mckenna.chris@epa.gov.

## Correction

                        In proposed rule FR Doc. 01-29777, beginning on page 60163 in the issue of December 3, 2001, make the following correction in the                         **Dates**                        section. On page 60163 in the 2nd column, replace the text,                     

                        “If a hearing is requested within 20 days of the date of publication of this document in the                         **Federal Register**                        , a hearing will be held on December 24, 2001 at the location indicated in the                         **ADDRESSES**                         section below.”                    

with the following text: 

                        “If a hearing is requested no later than December 24, 2001, a hearing will be held at a time and place to be published in the                         **Federal Register**                        .”                    

Dated: December 11, 2001.

Robert D. Brenner,

Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation.

[FR Doc. 01-31179 Filed 12-17-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7667

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ANTONIO AMOS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge.

(1:06-cr-00249-WDQ; 1:07-cv-01800-WDQ)

Submitted: April 16, 2008 Decided: May 23, 2008

Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Antonio Amos, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Agli Gallagher, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Antonio Amos seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is

not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Amos has not

made the requisite showing. 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 the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### In re: Sean Lamont DUDLEY, a/k/a John D. Brown, Petitioner.

No. 08-1097.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 22, 2008.

Decided: May 28, 2008.

Sean Lamont Dudley, Petitioner Pro Se.

Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Sean Lamont Dudley petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking recusal of United States District Court Judge Richard L. Voorhees. Our review of the district court’s docket reveals that there are no pending cases or motions in Judge Voorhees’ court. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. We also deny the motion for stay. 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.

*PETITION DENIED.*