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


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         75,694
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  3,398,180
<ALLOWANCES>                                   212,110
<INVENTORY>                                    3,956,974
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               8,232,291
<PP&E>                                         4,514,866
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1,824,306
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 11,097,396
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,927,858
<BONDS>                                        3,454,545
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       3,641,928
<OTHER-SE>                                     751,444
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   11,097,396
<SALES>                                        4,014,731
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               4,014,731
<CGS>                                          2,262,706
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  2,262,706
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               1,404,181
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               83,485
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             76,757
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                271,087
<INCOME-TAX>                                   108,435
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   162,652
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .05
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gregorio Enrique MARRUFO-YANEZ, also known as Enrique Dominguez-Cortez, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-51031

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

March 7, 2007.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before KING, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Gregorio Enrique Marrufo-Yanez raises arguments that are foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         746,579
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                            13,480,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  6,747,037
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                       2,187,700
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                         2,190,000
<LOANS>                                      5,081,645
<ALLOWANCE>                                     15,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              29,214,217
<DEPOSITS>                                  21,578,352
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             60,270
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        16,280
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,559,315
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              29,214,217
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 81,154
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              150,854
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               229,422
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               461,430
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             156,664
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             156,664
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          304,766
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   15,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                674,530
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (372,013)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   (372,013)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (372,013)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.30)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.30)
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.83
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                     0
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               15,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            15,000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

*October 6, 2009*

[Cite as *10/06/2009 Case Announcements,*2009-Ohio-5288.]

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

#### In re Hughley.

On September 16, 2009, this court found Kevin Hughley to be a vexatious litigator under S.Ct.Prac.R. XIV(5)(B). This court further ordered that Hughley was prohibited from continuing or instituting legal proceedings in this court without first obtaining leave. On October 1, 2009, Hughley submitted a motion for leave to file a notice of appeal. Upon review of the proffered document, the court finds it without merit. Accordingly,

It is ordered by the court that Kevin Hughley is denied leave to file a notice of appeal.
#### Michael Rene PEREZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Derral G. ADAMS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 06-15079.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 20, 2007.*

Filed Feb. 23, 2007.

Michael Rene Perez, Corcoran, CA, pro se.

Brian R. Means, Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Michael Rene Perez appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as untimely. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), the one-year limitations period is tolled for “[t]he time during which a properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2).

Perez is not entitled to statutory tolling for the seven-year interval between his first and second state petitions. *See Welch v. Carey,*350 F.3d 1079, 1082-83 (9th Cir.2003) (en banc) (concluding that the interval between state petitions was not tolled when the second petition abandoned the claims raised in the first petition and embarked on a new and different round of state court review).

Furthermore, even assuming that Perez is entitled to equitable tolling, *see Laws v. Lamarque,*351 F.3d 919, 923 (9th Cir.2003) (concluding that mental incompetency justifies equitable tolling), his petition was untimely.

AFFIRMED.

**

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

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2881 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2881

 To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to seek to enter into an 
  agreement with the city of Vallejo, California, for the transfer of 
   Mare Island Naval Cemetery in Vallejo, California, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 17, 2018

Mrs. Feinstein introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
             referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to seek to enter into an 
  agreement with the city of Vallejo, California, for the transfer of 
   Mare Island Naval Cemetery in Vallejo, California, 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. TRANSFER OF MARE ISLAND NAVAL CEMETERY TO SECRETARY OF 
              VETERANS AFFAIRS FOR MAINTENANCE BY NATIONAL CEMETERY 
              ADMINISTRATION.

    (a) Agreement.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall seek to 
enter into an agreement with the city of Vallejo, California, under 
which the city of Vallejo shall transfer to the Secretary all right, 
title, and interest in the Mare Island Naval Cemetery in Vallejo, 
California, at no cost to the Secretary.
    (b) Maintenance by NCA.--If the Mare Island Naval Cemetery is 
transferred to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs pursuant to subsection 
(a), the National Cemetery Administration shall maintain the cemetery 
as a national shrine.
                                 <all>
```
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 7523

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. NOAH BILLIE, a/k/a Red , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Columbia

. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. ( 3:17

- cr - 00246

- JFA

- 2 )

Submitted : February 17, 2022 Decided: February 23, 2022

Before AGEE and RUSHING , Circuit Judges , and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Noah Billie , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Noah Billie appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115

- 391, § 603(b)(1), 132 Stat. 5194, 5239. We review a district court’s denial of a compassionate rel ease motion for abuse of discretion. United States v.
Kibble , 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir.), cert. denied , 142 S. Ct. 383 (2021). We have
reviewed the record in this case and discern no abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we affirm
the district court’s ord er. 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.
AFFIRMED
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1118

MARIA C. FERNANDEZ, Plaintiff – Appellant,

v. MICHAEL V. HAYDEN, Lt. General, Director of National Security Agency, Defendant – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (1:04-cv-03009-JFM)

Submitted: December 31, 2008 Decided: January 12, 2009

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Terry B. Blair, Baltimore, Maryland; William T. Glasgow, Columbia, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Allen F. Loucks, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.PER CURIAM: Maria C. Fernandez appeals the district court’s orders granting summary judgment to the Defendant in Fernandez’s civil action and denying her motions to alter or amend judgment, for a protective order, and to compel. On appeal, Fernandez contends the district court abused its discretion in refusing to allow her to conduct discovery as to count one of her complaint prior to summary judgment, and the district court erred in concluding that there was insufficient evidence of disparate treatment, of retaliatory action, and that Fernandez’s alleged harassment was based on her gender to survive summary judgment. We affirm. We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, construing the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Holland v. Washington Homes, Inc. , 487 F.3d 208, 213 (4th Cir. 2007), cert. denied , 128 S. Ct. 955 (2008).

We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s refusal to allow discovery prior to granting summary judgment. Harrods Ltd. v. Sixty Internet Domain Names , 302 F.3d 214, 244 (4th Cir. 2002); Nguyen v. CNA Corp. , 44 F.3d 234, 242 (4th Cir. 1995). Summary judgment “should be rendered if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). “[T]here is no issue

23 for trial unless there is sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party for a jury to return a verdict for that party. If the evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 249-50 (1986). With these standards in mind, we have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record and find no abuse of discretion or reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Fernandez v. Hayden , No. 1:04-cv-03009-JFM (D. Md. Oct. 23, 2007; Aug. 27, 2007; Apr. 2, 2007; Aug. 25, 2006; Aug. 24, 2006; Sept. 26, 2005). 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
2009-1729.

#### State ex rel. W. Coleman v. Keough.

In Mandamus and Prohibition. This cause originated in this court on the filing of a complaint for a writ of mandamus and prohibition. Upon consideration of relator’s application for dismissal,

It is ordered by the court that the application for dismissal is granted. Accordingly, this cause is dismissed.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 41 (Thursday, March 1, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 12923]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-4988]


========================================================================
Notices
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules 
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings 
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, 
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency 
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents 
appearing in this section.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 41 / Thursday, March 1, 2001 / 
Notices

[[Page 12923]]



AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Board for International Food and Agricultural Development


One Hundred and Thirty Fourth Meeting; Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice is hereby 
given of the one hundred and thirty-fourth meeting of the Board for 
International Food and Agricultural Development (BIFAD). The meeting 
will be held from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on March 29th, 2001 and from 
8:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. on March 30th, 2001, in the NASULGC Meeting 
Room, 1307 New York Avenue, NW, Washington, DC.
    The first day will be devoted to a joint session with the CRSPs 
(Collaborative Research Support Programs--consortia of universities and 
international research entities devoted to agricultural commodity or 
theme research). The second day focuses on the future of university-
government partnerships on international agriculture, and on visions 
for BIFAD itself.
    Those wishing to attend the meeting to obtain additional 
information about BIFAD should contact Mr. Lawrence Paulson, the 
Designated Federal Officer for BIFAD. Write him in care of the U.S. 
Agency for International Development, Ronald Reagan Building, Office of 
Agriculture and Food Security, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Room 2.11-
073, Washington DC, 20523-2110 or telephone him at (202) 712-1436 or 
fax (202) 216-3010.

Lawrence Paulson,
USAID Designated Federal Officer for BIFAD, Office of Agriculture and 
Food Security, Economic, Growth Center, Bureau for Global Programs.
[FR Doc. 01-4988 Filed 2-28-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6116-01-M
#### The State of Ohio, Appellant, *v.*Madaris, Appellee.

[Cite as *State v. Madaris,*123 Ohio St.3d 127, 2009-Ohio-4903.]

(No. 2008-1052

Submitted August 11, 2009

Decided September 22, 2009.)

Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Scott M. Heenan, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellant.

Timothy Young, State Public Defender, and Sarah M. Schregardus, Assistant State Public Defender, for appellee.

{¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed on the authority of *State v. Harris,*122 Ohio St.3d 373, 2009-Ohio-3323, 911 N.E.2d 882.

Moyer, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur.
MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

2009-2312.

#### Karnofel v. Bernard.

Trumbull App. No. 2009-T-0046. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Trumbull County. It appears from the records of this court that appellant has not filed a merit brief, due February 22, 2010, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence. Upon consideration thereof,

It is ordered by the court that this cause is dismissed sua sponte.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2657

To direct the Coast Guard to establish the Gulf of Mexico Regional Fisheries

Law Enforcement Training Center.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 15, 1993

Mr. TAUZIN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Merchant Marine and Fisheries

A BILL

To direct the Coast Guard to establish the Gulf of Mexico

Regional Fisheries Law Enforcement Training Center.

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

3 SECTION 1. GULF OF MEXICO REGIONAL FISHERIES LAW

4 ENFORCEMENT TRAINING CENTER.

5 The Coast Guard shall establish the Gulf of Mexico

6 Regional Fisheries Law Enforcement Training Center in

7 the Eighth Coast Guard District in Southeastern Louisi8 ana. The purpose of the Gulf of Mexico Regional Fisheries

9 Law Enforcement Training Center shall be to increase the

10 skills and training of Coast Guard fisheries law enforce-
2

•HR 2657 IH

1 ment personnel and to ensure that such training considers

2 and meets the unique and complex needs and demands

3 of the fisheries of the Gulf of Mexico.

Æ
2009-1287.

#### Luz v. Grim.

Warren App. No. CA2009-06-086.
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION 

CERTIFIED COPY OF RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS 

I, Valerie Jean Best, Assistant Executive Secretary of the 

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, do hereby certify that the 

attached is a true and correct copy of a resolution duly adopted 

by the Board of Directors of said Corporation, on the 19th day of 

July, 2018, by notational vote, and that the same has not been 

amended or rescinded and is now in full force and effect. 

(SEAL) 

085152 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto 

subscribed my name and caused the 

seal of the Corporation to be 

affixed hereto, in the City of 

Washington and District of Columbia, 

this 19th day of July, 2018. 

Assistant Executive Secretary 

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 

Valerie Jean Best 

 /s/ . 
RESOLUTION

WHEREAS, the Board of Directors ("Board") of the Federal Deposit Insurance

Corporation ("FDIC") has the authority to appoint inferior officers for the FDIC and the

authority to appoint administrative law judges pursuant to Article II of the United States

Constitution (as the Head of a Department), 12 U.S.C. § 1819(a) (Fifth) (allowing the FDIC to

"appoint by its Baard of Directors such officers and employees as are not otherwise provided for

in this chapter") and 5 U.S.C. § 3105 (allowing agencies to "appoint" their own administrative

law judges).

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that in its capacity as the Head of a

Department, the Board hereby appoints Administrative Law Judge C. Richard Miserendino and

Administrative Law Judge Christopher B. McNeil as administrative law judges for the FDIC

pursuant to the appointment powers granted to it by Article II of the United States Constitution,

12 U.S.C.. § 1819(a) (Fifth) and 5 U.S.C. § 3105.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Executive Secretary or his designee is instructed

to certify a copy of this Resolution and to serve it on the said administrative law judges, and post

it on the FDIC's website.