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

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           3,753
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           3,085
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     54,846
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          36,708
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            36,154
<LOANS>                                        209,274
<ALLOWANCE>                                        596
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 313,233
<DEPOSITS>                                     226,651
<SHORT-TERM>                                    10,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              2,354
<LONG-TERM>                                     10,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        33,018
<OTHER-SE>                                      31,210
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 313,233
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 16,576
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                4,812
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   377
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                21,765
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               9,842
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,274
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           11,491
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  4,066
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,146
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       8,146
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,161
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.42
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.32
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.97
<LOANS-NON>                                        317
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   596
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  596
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               596
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 244

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for coverage

of prostate cancer screening tests under the medicare program.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 5, 1993

Mrs. LLOYD (for herself, Mr. MARKEY, Mr. HANSEN, Mr. TOWNS, Mr.

OWENS, Mr. CONYERS, Ms. NORTON, Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois, Mr.

SCHUMER, Mr. EMERSON, Mr. MURTHA, Mr. MARTINEZ, Mr. DIXON, Mr.

EVANS, Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas, Mr. MAZZOLI, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. SCHIFF,

Mr. VENTO, Mr. FAZIO, Mrs. COLLINS of Michigan, Mrs. SCHROEDER,

and Mr. BILIRAKIS) introduced the following bill; which was referred

jointly to the Committees on Ways and Means and Energy and

Commerce

A BILL

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide

for coverage of prostate cancer screening tests under

the medicare program.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Medicare Prostate

5 Screening Act of 1993’’.
2

•HR 244 IH

1 SEC. 2. MEDICARE COVERAGE OF PROSTATE CANCER

2 SCREENING TESTS.

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1861(s)(2) of the Social

4 Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(s)(2)) is amended—

5 (1) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of subpara6 graph (O);

7 (2) by striking the semicolon at the end of sub8 paragraph (P) and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and

9 (3) by adding at the end the following new sub10 paragraph:

11 ‘‘(Q) prostate cancer screening test (as defined

12 in subsection (ll));’’.

13 (b) DEFINITION.—Section 1861 of such Act (42

14 U.S.C. 1395x) is amended—

15 (1) by redesignating the subsection (jj) added

16 by section 4163(a)(2) of the Omnibus Budget Rec17 onciliation Act of 1990 as subsection (kk); and

18 (2) by inserting after such subsection the fol19 lowing new subsection:

20 ‘‘prostate cancer screening test

21 ‘‘(ll) The term ‘prostate cancer screening test’ means

22 a test that consists of a digital rectal examination or a

23 serum prostate-specific antigen test (or both) provided for

24 the purposes of early detection of prostate cancer to a man

25 over 40 years of age who has not had such a test during

26 the preceding year.’’.
3

•HR 244 IH

1 (c) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—(1) Section

2 1834(c)(1) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395m(c)(1)) is

3 amended by striking ‘‘1861(jj)’’ and inserting

4 ‘‘1861(kk)’’.

5 (2) Section 1861(s)(13) of such Act (42 U.S.C.

6 1395x(s)(13)) is amended by striking ‘‘subsection (jj)’’

7 and inserting ‘‘subsection (kk)’’.

8 (3) Section 1862(a)(1) of such Act (42 U.S.C.

9 1395y(a)(1)) is amended—

10 (A) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of subpara11 graph (E);

12 (B) by striking the semicolon at the end of sub13 paragraph (F) and inserting ‘‘, and’’; and

14 (C) by adding at the end the following new sub15 paragraph:

16 ‘‘(G) in the case of a prostate cancer screening

17 test, which is performed more frequently than is pro18 vided under section 1861(ll);’’.

19 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

20 The amendments made by section 2 shall apply to

21 tests furnished on or after January 1, 1994.

Æ
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

Cause	No.:						DA	20-0188

STATE	OF	MONTANA,

																							Plaintiff	and	Appellee,

					v.

BRANDON	MICHAEL	BAILEY,

																							Defendant	and	Appellant.

 

 ORDER GRANTING 

 TWO WEEK

 EXTENSION

 OF TIME

 

 

 

UPON	Appellant’s	Motion for	Two	Week Day	Extension	to	File	Opening	Brief, and	

good	cause	appearing,	IT	IS	HEREBY	ORDERED that	the	Appellant’s	motion is	GRANTED.

IT	IS	FURTHER	ORDERED that	the deadline	for	Appellant	to	submit	his Opening	

Brief is	now	July	2,	2020.

DATED	this	_____	day	of	June,	2020.

_______________________________

SUPREME	COURT	JUSTICE

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

June 18 2020

06/18/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0188
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel GYAMFI, a/k/a Nana, a/k/a Krateman, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-7561.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 13, 2011.

Decided: Jan. 21, 2011.

Daniel Gyamfi, Appellant Pro Se. Lawrence Joseph Leiser, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Daniel Gyamfi appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a downward departure. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in *670the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
Revised Abatement Order filed January 8, 2015

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 13

- 00395

- CR

____________ ALEXI DOMINICK HEMPH ILL , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 339th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1327402



### REVISED ABATEMENT ORDER
On September 30, 2014 , this c ourt directed the trial court to conduct a hearing on appellant’s motion for new trial regarding his contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel at the punishment phase of trial because of counsel’s failure to investigate, interview, and call witnesses to provide mitigating
evidence. The order abated th is appeal for 60 days, required the trial judge to see that a record of the hearing is made, and order the court reporter and the trial clerk to forward a record of the hearing and a supplemental clerk ’ s record containing thetrial court’s s igned order ruling on the motion for new trial

. The order required

those records to be filed on or before October 30, 2014.

No records were filed, and u pon inquiry, this court was informed that a hearing was scheduled for November 20, 2014. When no records were filed within 30 days of the scheduled hearing, this court inquired further, and was informed that the hearing was continued to January 9, 2015. We therefore issue the following
order:

The previous abatement is continued until January 23 , 2015. The ap peal will be reinstated on this court’s active docket on that date. The record of the hearing and supplemental clerk’s record are due on or before January 30 , 2015. Appellant’s supplemental brief, if any, is due on or before February 10 , 2015. The State’s response to appellant’s supplemental brief, if any, is due on or before February 20
, 2015. If the parties do not intend to file supplemental briefing, it is requested that they promptly inform the court

. It is so ORDERED.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Busby, and Wise.
EXHIBIT 13.1


CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

In connection with the annual report of CE Franklin Ltd. (the "Company") on Form
20-F for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael West,
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
     of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


         /s/ Michael West
         ----------------
Name:    Michael West
Title:   Chairman, President and
         Chief Executive Officer

Date:    March 18, 2005
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Amy Grady, * From the 35th District

 Court of Brown County,

 Trial Court No. CR21524.

Vs. No. 11-13-00200-CR * September 4, 2014

The State of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Willson, J.

 (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

 Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is 

no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s 

opinion, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
|   | 1. | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                         |   |                           |
|------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------|
|                         |   |                           |   |
| Date:      December 14, 2009 | By:    | /s/ Lawrence      J. Taff |   |
|                         |   | Lawrence      J. Taff          |   |
|                         |   | Chief      Financial Officer   |   |
|                         |   |                           |   |
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES  OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Novastar Financial, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, W. Lance Anderson, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Company certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes  Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                   |  |                                       
|------------------ |  | --------------------------------------
|Date: May 19, 2008 |  | /s/ W. Lance Anderson                 
|                   |  | W. Lance Anderson                     
|                   |  | Chairman of the Board of Directors and
|                   |  | Chief Executive Officer               

This certification is made solely for purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject to the knowledge standard
contained therein, and not for any other purpose.
#### Walter Shane LANGSTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JEffrey SHIAISHI; Ryan Enkoji, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 13-16168.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 7, 2014.*

Filed April 14, 2014.

Walter Shane Langston, Vacaville, CA, pro se.

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 Walter Shane Langston appeals pro se from the district *520court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations in connection with events preceding his 2007 arrest. We review de novo. *Weilburg v. Shapiro,*488 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir.2007). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record, *Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP,*534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir.2008), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Langston’s Fourth Amendment and right to travel claims because defendants’ acts did not constitute a search or seizure, and Langston failed to allege sufficient facts to show that defendants actually interfered with his travel. *See United States, v. Al Nasser,*555 F.3d 722, 726 (9th Cir.2009) (the Fourth Amendment requires government action, and is not implicated where an individual voluntarily stops his vehicle); *see also Nat’l Ass’n. for the Advancement of Psychoanalysis v. Cal. Bd. of Psychology,*228 F.3d 1043, 1049 (9th Cir.2000) (explaining that “we may consider facts contained in documents attached to the complaint” in determining whether the complaint states a claim for relief).

The district court properly dismissed Langston’s racial discrimination claims because Langston failed to allege sufficient facts to show discriminatory bias. *See Thornton v. City of St. Helens,*425 F.3d 1158, 1166-67 (9th Cir.2005) (a § 1983 claim for violation of the Equal Protection Clause requires a showing of discriminatory intent or purpose); *see also Nat’l Ass’n. for the Advancement of Psychoanalysis,*228 F.3d at 1049.

Dismissal of Langston’s conspiracy claim was proper because there was no underlying constitutional violation. *See Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of Med.,*363 F.3d 916, 929-30 (9th Cir.2004) (describing pleading requirements for a § 1985 claim and explaining that there can be no conspiracy without an underlying rights violation).

The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied as moot Langston’s motions to compel discovery after dismissing his complaint as deficient as a matter of law. *See Hallett v. Morgan,*296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir.2002) (setting forth standard of review and noting the district court’s broad discretion in deciding motions to compel discovery).

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane lunani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T DA NI EL RAM I RE Z R OSET E; M ARGA RI TA CORT EZ DE RAM I RE Z, P et i t i o n ers, v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 08- 73393 A ge nc yN os . A 097- 351- 655

A 097- 351- 658 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d S e pt e m be r13, 2010 ** B efo re: S IL V E R M A N , C A L L A H A N , an dN . R . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. D ani e lR am i r e z R os e t e and M ar gar i t aC ort e z D e R am i r e z , na t i ve s and c i t i z e ns of

M e xi c o, pe t i t i on pr o s e f orr e vi e w of

the B oar d of

I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ’ ( “ B I A ” ) or de rde ny i ng the i rm ot i on t o r e i s s ue . W e have j ur i s di c t i on u n d e r8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 . R e v ie w in g f o rab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n th e d e n ia l o f am o tio n to 

# FI LED OC T 01 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 73393 2 r e o p e n , H

erna ndez -V

elasqu ezv. H

older , 6 1 1 F . 3 d1 0 7 3 , 1 0 7 7 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 1 0 ) , we g r an t th e p e titio n f

o rr e v ie w an dr e m an d . T h e B IA ab u sedi t s d i scret i o n b y fai l i n g t o sp eci fi cal l y ad d ress p et i t i o n ers’ e v id e n c e th a t th e yd idn o t r e c e iv e n o tic e o f th e B I A ’s S e p te m b e r2 8 , 2 0 0 7 , o r d e r . See Si ng h v. G on zales , 4 9 4 F .3 d1 1 7 0 , 1 1 7 2 - 7 3 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) ( B I A is o b lig a te dto c ons i de rand a ddr e s s the e vi de nc e s ubm i tt e d bype t i t i one r ) . W e r e m and f orthe B I A t o a ddr e s s pe t i t i one r s ’ e vi de nc e of non- r e c e ipti n the f

i r s ti ns t anc e and d e te rm in e w h e th e rit is s u f f ic ie n t to o v e r c o m e th e p r e s u m p tio n o f m a ilin g . Se e id . P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W GR AN T E D; RE MAND E D.
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                    SUBSIDIARIES OF AMERISTAR CASINOS, INC.

 1. Cactus Pete's, Inc., a Nevada corporation, dba Cactus Pete's Resort Casino
    and The Horseshoe Hotel & Casino

 2. Ameristar Casino Vicksburg, Inc., a Mississippi corporation

 3. Ameristar Casino Council Bluffs, Inc., an Iowa corporation

 4. Ameristar Casino Las Vegas, Inc., a Nevada corporation

 5. A.C. Food Services, Inc., a Nevada corporation

 6. Ameristar Casino St. Louis, Inc., a Missouri corporation

 7. Ameristar Casino St. Charles, Inc., a Missouri corporation

 8. Ameristar Casino Kansas City, Inc., a Missouri corporation

 9. AC Harrisburg Development, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation

10. Richmond Street Development, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation

11. Ameristar Casino Black Hawk, Inc., a Colorado corporation, dba Mountain High
    Casino
Exhibit
      32.1




**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTIONS 1350**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Franklin Credit Management Corporation
      (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
      Alexander Gordon Jardin, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1.
            The
                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
                of
                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
                and




2.
            The
                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
                Company.






U /s/
      Alexander Gordon Jardin





Alexander
      Gordon Jardin


Chief
      Executive Officer


August
      14, 2007
---

EXHIBIT 32CERTIFICATIONS UNDER SECTION
906 OF SARBANES-OXLEY

In connection with the annual report of TAG Oil Ltd. (the
Company) on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Drew Cadenhead, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of
      section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
  and                                   
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |    |                                                                                                                                                                 
| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.

Drew Cadenhead____________________________Name: Drew
CadenheadTitle: Chief Executive Officer
  September 28, 2006

CERTIFICATIONS UNDER SECTION 906 OF SARBANES-OXLEY

In connection with the annual report of TAG Oil Ltd. (the
Company) on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ending March 31, 20036 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Garth Johnson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of
      section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
  and                                   
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |    |                                                                                                                                                                 
| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.

Garth Johnson____________________________Name: Garth
JohnsonTitle: Chief Financial Officer
  September 28, 2006

---