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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                            9191
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    81072
<ALLOWANCES>                                      3380
<INVENTORY>                                     130022
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                241314
<PP&E>                                          793360
<DEPRECIATION>                                  157976
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  947295
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           133046
<BONDS>                                         235000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           257
<OTHER-SE>                                      360600
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    947295
<SALES>                                         411083
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                411083
<CGS>                                           351079
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   351079
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                5307
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  24579
<INCOME-TAX>                                      9231
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              15348
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     15348
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .58
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .58
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-6646

ALVIN LEE GREGORY, Petitioner - Appellant,

versus MICHAEL V. COLEMAN, Acting Warden, Mount Olive Correctional Complex, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. David A. Faber, Chief District Judge. (5:02-cv-00472) Submitted: January 31, 2007 Decided: February 20, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alvin Lee Gregory, Appellant Pro Se. Heather A. Connolly, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Charleston, West Virginia; Charles Patrick Houdyschell, Jr., WEST VIRGINIA DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.* Compare, e.g. , White v. Lambert , 370 F.3d 1002, 1005 (9th Cir. 2004) (“adopt[ing] majority view that 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is the exclusive vehicle for a habeas petition by a state prisoner in custody pursuant to a state court judgment, even when the petitioner is not challenging his underlying state court conviction”), withHamm v. Saffle , 300 F.3d 1213, 1216 (10th Cir. 2002) (approving of inmates proceeding under § 2241 to challenge execution of state court sentence). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Alvin Lee Gregory seeks to appeal the district court’s order construing his petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) as a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition and dismissing it as untimely, and the court’s orders denying reconsideration. The orders are 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, although the district court’s procedural ruling is debatable, * Gregory has not demonstrated that the court’s assessment of the constitutional- 3 - claim is debatable or wrong. 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
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6443

CLAUDE DELMUS SHAFER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus EDWARD PEREZ, Warden; CHUCK KILGORE, Disciplinary Hearing Officer; BUREAU OF PRISONS; JOHN DOES, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. David A. Faber, District Judge. (CA-00-1173-5) Submitted: June 20, 2002 Decided: June 26, 2002 Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Claude Delmus Shafer, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Claude Delmus Shafer appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994). Shafer’s case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied without prejudice due, in part, to Shafer’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies and warned Shafer that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court’s order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Shafer failed to object to the portion of the magistrate judge’s report recommending dismissal without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss with action without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned that failure to object will waive appellate review. See Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 844-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982) (failure to file specific objections to particular conclusions in magistrate judge’s report, after being warned of consequences, waives further review). Shafer has waived appellate review by failing to object to the magistrate3 judge’s recommendation to dismiss the action without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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
On appellant’s petition for reconsideration filed August 21,

reconsideration allowed; former opinion (264 Or App 779, 334 P3d 480) modified and adhered to as modified October 29, 2014

#### In the Matter of Z. A. B., Alleged to be a Mentally Ill Person. STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*Z. A. B., *Appellant.*

Deschutes County Circuit Court

14MH0001; A156148

338 P3d 802

Garrett A. Richardson and Multnomah Defenders, Inc., for appellant’s petition.

Before Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and Tookey, Judge, and Edmonds, Senior Judge.

PER CURIAM

*709PER CURIAM

Appellant has petitioned for reconsideration of our opinion in *State v. Z. A. B.,*264 Or App 779, 334 P3d 480 (2014). In that case, we accepted the state’s concession of error, and exercised our discretion to reverse the trial court’s decision to commit appellant to the Addiction and Mental Health Division of the Oregon Health Authority for a period not to exceed 180 days pursuant to ORS 426.130(l)(a)(C). In his petition for reconsideration, appellant points out that we did not address a second order that was also the subject of the appeal: an order prohibiting appellant from purchasing or possessing firearms pursuant to ORS 426.130(l)(a)(D). He argues that our reversal of the commitment decision necessarily requires reversal of the firearms order, because the statutory authority to prohibit the purchase or possession of firearms under ORS 426.130(l)(a)(D) requires a determination that a person is a “person with mental illness” under ORS 426.005(l)(e) — just as is required for an order of commitment under ORS 426.130(l)(a)(C).

We agree with appellant. *See State v. W. B.,*264 Or App 777, 778, 333 P3d 1099 (2014) (“Finding that an individual ‘is a person with mental illness’ is a condition precedent to the issuance of an order prohibiting the purchase or possession of a firearm, ORS 426.130(l)(a)(D).”). Accordingly, we allow reconsideration and modify our opinion as follows:

We delete the following sentence, which appears at 264 Or App at 780: “Appellant seeks reversal of a judgment committing him for a period not to exceed 180 days pursuant to ORS 426.130.”

In its place, we substitute:

> “Appellant seeks reversal of an order committing him for a period not to exceed 180 days pursuant to ORS 426.130(l)(a)(C) and an order prohibiting him from purchasing or possessing firearms pursuant to ORS 426.130(l)(a)(D).”

Reconsideration allowed; former opinion modified and adhered to as modified.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000829324
<NAME>                        National Equities Holding, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                  1.000
<CASH>                                           3,611
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,632
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                19,964
<PP&E>                                       1,381,284
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (57,576)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,917,244
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          798,379
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        38,228
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,080,638
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,917,244
<SALES>                                         12,768
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                21,768
<CGS>                                          (13,922)
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (256,278)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              (3,210)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (251,642)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (251,642)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (251,642)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.006)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.006)
        


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

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM 1997 FIRST
QUARTER 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                   1000
<CASH>                                            2855
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                   850
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                       9499
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                            9138
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                              9230
<LOANS>                                          51518
<ALLOWANCE>                                       1032
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   76132
<DEPOSITS>                                       62458
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                               1255
<LONG-TERM>                                       2827
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          1487
<OTHER-SE>                                        8105
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                   76132
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                   1158
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  306
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     2
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                  1466
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                 566
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 604
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                              862
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                    587
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    410
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         410
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       295
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .99
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.13
<LOANS-NON>                                         70
<LOANS-PAST>                                       279
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                    53
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                  1020
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        1
<RECOVERIES>                                        13
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                 1032
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                66
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            966
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 23.1


INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements Nos.
33-80975, 333-2438, 333-12203, 333-17539 and 333-17837 of Chartwell Re
Corporation on Form S-8 of our report dated February 5, 1997, appearing in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K of Chartwell Re Corporation for the year ended
December 31, 1996.

We also consent to the reference to us under the heading Interest of Named
Experts in such filings.

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Parsippany, New Jersey
March 25, 1997
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule  contains summary financial  information  extracted from Form
10-QSB for the nine months  ended  September  30, 1999 and is  qualified  in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                 DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                      SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                                 30,311
<SECURITIES>                                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                                         182,529
<ALLOWANCES>                                                0
<INVENTORY>                                           248,516
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      687,329
<PP&E>                                              8,251,178
<DEPRECIATION>                                      2,885,406
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     12,234,613<F1>
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               4,861,924
<BONDS>                                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                       0
<PREFERRED>                                         1,327,986
<COMMON>                                              167,108
<OTHER-SE>                                         42,984,939
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       12,234,613<F1>
<SALES>                                               507,657
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      550,213
<CGS>                                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                               0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    5,814,136
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    912,213<F2>
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (6,334,857)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                         0
<DISCONTINUED>                                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                             0
<CHANGES>                                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (6,334,857)
<EPS-BASIC>                                             (0.40)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           (0.40)



<FN>
<F1> Includes  <$324,078>  cumulative foreign currency  translation  adjustment,
     applicable to the net assets of the Canadian joint venture [ Tag # 18 & Tag
     # 25 ]

<F2> Interest  expense  includes  $698,963 of  amortization of debt discount and
     expenses, a non-cash item [ Tag # 32 ]
</FN>

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 37 (Friday, February 23, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 11316]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-4515]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Under the Clean Air Act

    Notice is hereby given that on February 8, 2001, a proposed consent 
decree in United States v. Forsch Polymer Corporation, Civil Action No. 
00-N-919, was lodged with the United States District Court for the 
District of Colorado.
    In this action, the United States sought injunctive relief and the 
payment of civil penalties for Forsch Polymer's alleged violations of 
the Stratospheric Ozone Protection Requirements set forth at Subchapter 
VI of the Clean Air Act, and EPA's implementing regulations. Under the 
proposed decree, the defendant Forsch Polymer Corporation will pay the 
sum of $32,000 over a one year period. The settlement sum is based upon 
the financial inability of Forsch Polymer Corporation to pay more. The 
proposed decree does not require that Forsch Polymer Corporation take 
any injunctive measures because Forsch Polymer Corporation has 
certified that it no longer uses the ozone depleting substance that 
formed the basis of the United States' action.
    The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) 
days from the date of this publication comments relating to the 
proposed consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant 
Attorney General of the Environment and Natural Resources Division, 
Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20530, and should refer to United 
States v. Forsch Polymer Corporation, D.J. Ref. 90-5-2-1-06428.
    The proposed consent decree may be examined at the Office of the 
United States Attorney, 1225 17th Street, Suite 700, Denver, CO 80202; 
and at U.S. EPA Region VIII, 999 18th Street, Denver, Colorado 80202. A 
copy of the proposed consent decree may be obtained by mail from the 
Consent Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044. In 
requesting a copy, please enclose a check in the amount of $3.25 (25 
cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the Consent Decree 
Library.

Robert D. Brook,
Assistant Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and 
Natural Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 01-4515 Filed 2-22-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-M
#### LOW CARBON PROCESSORS, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KENNAMETAL, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 10-1156-cv.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Jan. 19, 2011.

*525Richard A. Cohen, Cohen & Cohen, Utica, NY, for Appellant.

James A. Resila, Carter, Conboy, Case, Blackmore, Maloney & Laird, P.C., Albany, NY, for Appellee.

Present: ROSEMARY S. POOLER, ROBERT A. KATZMANN, RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant, a corporation that assists manufacturing companies with recycling their scrap metal, appeals an order of the district court (Hurd, *J.)*granting summary judgment to Appellees on the ground, inter alia, that Appellant failed to raise an issue of material fact with respect to Appellees’ alleged breach of a confidentiality agreement. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history and issues presented on appeal.

We review an award of summary judgment de novo, “resolving all ambiguities and drawing all permissible factual inferences in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought.” *Burg v. Gosselin,*591 F.3d 95, 97 (2d Cir.2010) (citing *Wright v. Goord,*554 F.3d 255, 266 (2d Cir.2009)). Summary judgment is appropriate only if there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. *See*Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a).

Appellant maintains that Appellee breached a confidentiality agreement by disclosing the prices Appellant was willing to pay for scrap metal and the markets in which Appellant operated. In support of its motion for summary judgment, Appellee submitted testimony from the two individuals purported to have firsthand knowledge of the alleged breach, both of whom denied ever having discussed anything relating to Appellant or its scrap metal business. Appellant produced no evidence calling into question the veracity of their testimony, nor did Appellant come forward with any other direct evidence of its own.

Rather, Appellant argues that the similarity between the third party’s price for scrap metal and Appellant’s price for scrap metal plainly indicates that there was a breach of the confidentiality agreement. The district court held that this circumstantial evidence was insufficient to create a genuine issue of disputed fact because (1) Appellant did not establish that knowledge of the pricing and market information was known exclusively by Appellant; (2) the prices offered by Appellant and the third party were not identical; and (3) Appellant failed to show that knowledge of Appellant’s pricing information was the only way to obtain a price similar to that offered by Appellant. *Low Carbon Processors, LLC v. Kennametal, Inc.,*693 F.Supp.2d 191, 196-97 (N.D.N.Y.2010).

We find no error in the district court’s thoughtful and well-reasoned opinion and affirm for substantially the reasons stated by the district court. We have considered Appellant’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.