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

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         387,590
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                      8,885,753
<ALLOWANCE>                                    201,345
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,007,705
<DEPOSITS>                                           0
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                  0
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    11,138,985
<OTHER-SE>                                   (364,398)
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              11,007,705
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                982,680
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                    0
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                10,838
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               993,518
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                                0
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  117,188
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                498,722
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   560,148
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                       0
<LOANS-NON>                                  2,553,585
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               182,745
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  101,563
<RECOVERIES>                                     2,975
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              201,345
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

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

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS OF THERAPY LASERS, INC. AS OF AUGUST 31, 1999 AND FOR THE THREE
MONTHS AND SIX MONTHS THEN ENDED, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1999
<CASH>                                              65
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    65
<PP&E>                                           1,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      65
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           25,446
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        11,303
<OTHER-SE>                                    (36,684)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        65
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                15,389
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 102
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (15,491)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (15,491)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (15,491)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.00)


</TABLE>
#### Juan Nepomuceno RAMIREZ-GIRALDO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-74601.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 6, 2010.*

Filed Dec. 9, 2010.

Jon Eric Garde, Esquire, Immigration Law Office of Jon Eric Garde & Assoc., Las Vegas, NV, for Petitioner.

*114Monica Antoun, Esquire, OIL, Rosanne Perry, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: HUG, D.W. NELSON and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Juan Nepomuceno Ramirez-Giraldo (“petitioner”), a native and citizen of Colombia, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) adopting and affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) final order of removal, denying his claims for asylum and withholding of removal.1 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. When the “BIA adopts the decision of the IJ, we review the IJ’s decision as if it were that of the BIA.” *Abebe v. Gonzales,*432 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc) (quotations omitted). We review the IJ’s findings of fact for substantial evidence. *Monjaraz-Munoz v. INS,*327 F.3d 892, 895 (9th Cir.2003). We review the IJ’s changed and extraordinary circumstances determinations for substantial evidence. *See Tampubolon v. Holder,*610 F.3d 1056, 1059 (9th Cir.2010) (citing *Ramadan v. Gonzales,*479 F.3d 646, 657 (9th Cir. 2007)); *see also Husyev v. Mukasey,*528 F.3d 1172, 1181-82 (9th Cir.2008).

Even if Ramirez-Giraldo could show deficient performance of counsel, he failed to demonstrate he was prejudiced by such performance because substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that RamirezGiraldo is ineligible for asylum and withholding due to his failure to show a well-founded fear of persecution on account of a protected ground. *See 8*C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(5)(iii); *Strickland v. Washington,*466 U.S. 668, 699-700, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); *Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey,*542 F.3d 738, 745-47 (9th Cir. 2008).

In addition, the record does not compel a conclusion that Ramirez-Giraldo qualified for the changed country conditions exception to the one-year filing deadline. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4); *Ramadan v. Gonzales,*479 F.3d 646, 657-58 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

1

. Ramirez-Giraldo did not appeal the IJ’s denial of his claim for protection under the Convention Against Torture to either the BIA or this court. Any such claims is therefore waived. *See Ghahremani v. Gonzales,*498 F.3d 993, 997 (9th Cir.2007).
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-50399

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff−Appellee,

versus

JOSE DANILO CONTRERAS-MARTINEZ,

Defendant−Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

No. 2:16-CR-1135-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Contreras-Martinez appeals his 27-month sentence for illegal 

 

* 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

February 16, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-50399 Document: 00514350281 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/16/2018
No. 17-50399

2

reentry after deportation. He asserts that his indictment did not allege that 

he had a prior conviction, so his sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) violated his 

due-process rights by exceeding the two-year statutory maximum in § 1326(a). 

The government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance, 

asserting that Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), forecloses Contreras-Martinez’s position. Contreras-Martinez concedes that his 

argument was rejected in Almendarez-Torres and explains that he raises it to 

preserve it for further review; thus, summary affirmance is appropriate. See 

Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). 

Accordingly, the motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED. The 

judgment is AFFIRMED. The government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED. 

 Case: 17-50399 Document: 00514350281 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/16/2018
# Milk Indemnity

# Cow Indemnity
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4197

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. MATTHEW ISAAC JACKSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., District Judge. (1:07-cr-00195-NCT-1) Submitted: July 16, 2008 Decided: July 28, 2008 Before WILKINSON and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, William C. Ingram, First Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Michael Francis Joseph, Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Matthew Isaac Jackson seeks to appeal his conviction and sentence. In criminal cases, the defendant must file the notice of appeal within ten days after the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A). With or without a motion, upon a showing of excusable neglect or good cause, the district court may grant an extension of up to thirty days to file a notice of appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4); United States v. Reyes , 759 F.2d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 1985). The district court entered judgment on January 16, 2008. Jackson filed the notice of appeal on February 1, 2008, after the ten-day period expired but within the thirty-day excusable neglect period. Because the notice of appeal was filed within the excusable neglect period, we remand the case to the district court for the court to determine whether Jackson has shown excusable neglect or good cause warranting an extension of the ten-day appeal period. The record, as supplemented, will then be returned to this court for further consideration. REMANDED
### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOX VILLE Marc h 21 , 200 7 S es sio n

JO HN WAYNE W EBB v. BRANDON O. CANADA & DOUGLAS P. TOW NSEND

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Knox County No. 2-740-04 Hon. Harold Wim berly, Circ uit Jud ge

No. E2006-01701-COA- R3-CV- F ILED MAY 25, 2007

CO NC URRI NG

OP IN ION

The majority

holds that the J udg ment denominated “ Final Judgment” reducingthe previous Judgment fr om $723,426.27 to $598,426.27 was a “j u ri stic act” of ac cepta nce of the remittitur under prote st. Ido not ag ree
.

“A judgment is final fr om which an a ppeal lies a s a matter of

rig ht when it decide s and disposes of the whole merits of the case leaving nothing for the further judgme nt of the cour

t.” Sa un de rs v . M

e tro . G ov ’t

of N as hv ille &Da v ids on Cou nty , 383 S.W .2d 28, 31 (Tenn. 1964) , quoted in Ri c ha rd

so n v . Te nn . B d. of D e nti

str y , 913 S.W .2d 446, 460 (Tenn. 1995)

. Whil e the Cir c uit

Court ’s ord er is style d a “ F ina l Judg me nt, ” it i s at mo st a provisional order

beca use it did not, as such, deny Canada ’s Motion for Ne w Trial. B eca use the Re c or d b e fo re the Court

c on ta ins no or de r d e nying Ca na da ’s Mo tio n for

a Ne w T ri a l, I

wo uld ho ld the appe al is prematur e.

However, since the majority has found that the “ Final Judgment” as ente red constituted a “juristic act” acc epting the remittitur unde r protest, the majority ’s decision b ec omes the law of the ca se unl ess overturned, and the pl aintiff cannot later claim that his Motion for a New Trial is still vi able.

The statute a

nd case s presc ribe the pr ocedur e for d ealing with sug g estions of remittitur which the plaintiff failed to f ollow in this c ase. Howeve r, for the stated re ason, I

concur-2-

wi th t he re su lt of the ma

jor ity ’s Op ini on

on thi s is su e . I

c on c ur wi th t he ma jor ity on the oth e r i ssu e s.

______________________________ H ER SCH EL P I CKE N S F RAN KS , P

. J.
#### Kelvin HOUSTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mike KNOWLES, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 13-15038.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*529Submitted April 7, 2014.*

Filed April 14, 2014.

Kelvin Houston, Vacaville, CA, pro se.

Martin Kosla, Mitchell Aaron Wrosch, Susan Eileen Coleman, Esquire, Senior Litigation, Burke, Williams *&*Sorensen, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: TASHIMA, GRABER, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Kelvin Houston appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging, among other claims, that defendants wrongfully placed and retained him in administrative segregation in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *Resnick v. Hayes,*213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Houston’s due process claim because Houston failed to allege sufficient facts to show that defendants violated his constitutional rights by placing him in administrative segregation. *See Sandin v. Conner,*515 U.S. 472, 483-84, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995) (no due process violation if restraint imposed is not an “atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life”).

The district court properly dismissed Houston’s equal protection claim because Houston failed to allege sufficient facts to show that he has been treated differently from any other similarly situated persons without a rational basis, *see Engquist v. Or. Dep’t of Agric.,*553 U.S. 591, 601-03, 128 S.Ct. 2146, 170 L.Ed.2d 975 (2008), or that he was intentionally discriminated against on the basis of his membership in a protected class, *see Thornton v. City of St. Helens,*425 F.3d 1158, 1166-67 (9th Cir.2005).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       6,908,970
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  792,781
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0 
<INVENTORY>                                          0 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      80,211,400
<DEPRECIATION>                            (15,654,049)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              73,821,011
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,917,520
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      5,274
<COMMON>                                         1,610
<OTHER-SE>                                  43,485,375
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                73,821,011
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,326,635
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,118,136
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,264,280
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,944,219
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,944,219
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,944,219
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.78
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.78
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 34 (Tuesday, February 20, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 10887]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-4183]


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

FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION


Farm Credit Administration Board; Special Meeting; Sunshine Act

AGENCY: Farm Credit Administration.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the Government in the 
Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b(e)(3)), of the forthcoming special meeting 
of the Farm Credit Administration Board (Board).

DATE AND TIME: The special meeting of the Board will be held at the 
offices of the Farm Credit Administration in McLean, Virginia, on 
February 21, 2001, from 9 a.m. until such time as the Board concludes 
its business.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kelly Mikel Williams, Secretary to the 
Farm Credit Administration Board, (703) 883-4025, TDD (703) 883-4444.

ADDRESSES: Farm Credit Administration, 1501 Farm Credit Drive, McLean, 
Virginia 22102-5090.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Parts of this meeting of the Board will be 
open to the public (limited space available), and parts of this meeting 
will be closed to the public. In order to increase the accessibility to 
Board meetings, persons requiring assistance should make arrangements 
in advance. The matters to be considered at the meeting are:

Open Session

A. Approval of Minutes
    <bullet> January 11, 2001 (Open)
B. Reports
    <bullet> Corporate Approvals Report
C. New Business
    <bullet> Regulations
    1. Disclosure--Annual Report--Final Rule
    2. FAMC Risk-Based Capital--Final Rule

Closed Session \*\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \*\ Session closed-exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(8) and 
(9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Report
    <bullet> OSMO Report

    Dated: February 14, 2001.
Kelly Mikel Williams,
Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board.
[FR Doc. 01-4183 Filed 2-14-01; 4:58 pm]
BILLING CODE 6705-01-P
947 A.2d 710

#### COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant v. Leroy FEARS, Appellee.

No. 562 CAP.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

April 22, 2008.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 22nd day of April, 2008, the October 15, 2007 order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County in the above-captioned matter is VACATED. *See*Pa.R.Crim.P. 909(B)(2)(a). This matter is REMANDED to the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County for further proceedings.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2



                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement No.
333-39449, filed on November 4, 1997 of Safeskin Corporation on Form S-8 and on
Registration Statement No. 333-40017 of Safeskin Corporation filed on November
12, 1997 on Form S-8 of our report dated February 17, 1997, appearing in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K of Safeskin Corporation for the year ended December
31, 1997.



                                         COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.



San Diego, California
March 26, 1998
U.S. flag
						An official website of the
								United States government
							Here's
								how you know
						Here's how you
								knowDot gov**Official websites use .gov**  A **.gov**
									website belongs to an official government organization in the
									United States.
						Https**Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**  A **lock**
									( A locked padlock
									) or **https://** means you've safely
									connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only
									on official, secure websites. Skip
				to main content
 usda logousfs shield*Forest Service*
						Caring For the Land and Serving People
					Menu
			close

					Pike-San Isabel National Forests & Cimarron and Comanche National Grasslands


						Forest Service Home
							About the Agency

							Contact
									the National Office
							Inside the FS





				Search
 Bear Lake Trailhead
   Area Status:
 Bear Lake is located north of Turquoise Lake, 1/2 mile within the Holy Cross Wilderness. High clearance vehicles are needed to get to the trailhead off of Forest Service Road 107. You can also access Bear Lake from the western-most end of County Road 9 for a two mile, one-way hike through the Holy Cross Wilderness.
  At a Glance Permit Info:
				Permits are required for overnight stays.Usage:
				Medium-HeavyBusiest Season:
				June-SeptemberRestrictions:
				Wilderness regulations applyClosest Towns:
				Leadville, COWater:
				NoneRestroom:
				NoneInformation Center:
				Leadville Ranger District
 Recreation Map Map showing recreational areas. 
		
			Map Information
 Activities Climbing Mountain Climbing
 Hiking Day Hiking
 Nature Viewing Viewing Wildlife  Viewing Plants  Viewing Scenery
 Quick Links Responsible Recreation
 								     Link opens in a new window
							
								Recreation Passes
 								     Link opens in a new window
							
								Maps & Publications
 								     Link opens in a new window
  Recreation Areas Find An Area
 Recreation Activities Select an Activity - Select an Activity -
 Go
  Highlights 'Queen of the 14ers'
						       Link opens in a new windowShe is the agency’s Colorado Fourteeners Program manager; others simply refer to her as ‘Queen of the 14ers’.
    Location
 Return to top
	
	**Pike-San Isabel National Forests &
Cimarron and Comanche National Grasslands
Forest Supervisor Office**

2840 Kachina Drive
Pueblo, CO 81008
719-553-1400
TTY: 719-553-1404
M-F 7:30 a.m. – 4:30 p.m.

District Offices - Hours vary
Contact Us   











				Recreation.gov

						askUSDA

						Report Fraud
								on USDA Contracts

						Accessibility Statement

						WhiteHouse.gov

						Policies and Links

						Visit OIG

						Privacy Policy

						eGov

						Our Performance

						Plain Writing

						Non-Discrimination Statement
						
						Anti-Harassment Policy

						No FEAR Act Data
						
						
						Open Government

						Careers

						FOIA
						
						Information Quality

						USA.gov


	usda logousfs shield*Forest Service*
					U.S. Department of Agriculture