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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
These numbers pertain to 1995
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER>                                         1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                         YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                               3,006
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       11,783
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    14,789
<PP&E>                                             509,297
<DEPRECIATION>                                      14,561
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     509,525
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               37,063
<BONDS>                                            114,275
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                               176
<OTHER-SE>                                         358,011
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       509,525
<SALES>                                             66,455
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    68,007
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       34,525
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     1,325 <F1>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   3,004
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     29,153
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 29,153
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                        29,153
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         1.87
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         1.86

<FN>
Included in other expenses are minority interest expense and interest income.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT TIMOTHY CARNESS AUTRY, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. No. 96-6701 PHYLLIS B. WOODS; RICHARD HEATH; CHARLES G. RAYNOR, SR., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Chief District Judge. (CA-94-40-5-CT-F) Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: July 8, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Timothy Carness Autry, Appellant Pro Se. Jane Ray Garvey, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).OPINION PER CURIAM: Timothy Autry, a North Carolina inmate, appeals the order of thedistrict court granting the State's motion to impose a prefiling injunction in future cases. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. The imposition of a prefiling injunction was proper on the factspresented. It is clear that federal courts have the power and constitutional obligation to issue such injunctions where vexatious conduct hinders the court from fulfilling its constitutional duty. 1 Of course, acourt imposing such an injunction must be careful not to order conditions that effectively deny access to the courts. 2We are limited to deciding whether the district court abused its discretion, 3 and we hold that the injunction was proper. It is clear that Autry's access to the courts is not denied as he can file lawsuits with the leave of court and an accompanying affidavit. This is a permissible c ondition on his right to access. 4 Furthermore, several factors suggest that the injunction was warranted: Autry has a lengthy history of frivolous lawsuits, often involving the same issues; Autry acted in bad faith by harassing and abusing the Defendants under the guise of litigation; and Autry has caused needless expense and burdens on Defendants, the district court, and this court. 5 Therefore, it is clear that the district court did not abuse its discretion in enjoining Autry.

_________________________________________________________________ 1 See Procup v. Strickland , 792 F.2d 1069, 1073 (11th Cir. 1986) (in banc); Graham v. Riddle , 554 F.2d 133 (4th Cir. 1977). 2 Procup , 792 F.2d at 1071; see also In re Green , 669 F.2d 779, 786 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (per curiam). 3 Procup , 792 F.2d at 1074; Wood v. Santa Barbara Chamber of Commerce , 705 F.2d 1515, 1524 (9th Cir. 1983), cert. denied , 465 U.S. 1081 (1984). 4 Procup , 792 F.2d at 1072-73. 5 See Safir v. United States Lines, Inc. , 792 F.2d 19, 24 (2d Cir. 1986), cert. denied , 479 U.S. 1099 (1987).
2Accordingly, we affirm the orders of the district court. We dispensewith oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and oral argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED 3
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 43 (Monday, March 5, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 13313]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-5239]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER01-946-001]


Doyle I, L.L.C.; Notice of Filing

February 27, 2001.
    Take notice that on February 16, 2001, Doyle I, L.L.C. (Doyle), 
tendered for filing a supplemental letter to denote typographical 
errors in its January 12, 2001 filing, as well as to update the cost 
support included in the filing. On January 12, 2001, Doyle filed with 
the Commission a revised cost-based rate to its FERC Electrric Rate 
Schedule No. 1, the Power Purchase and Sale Agreement, as amended 
(PPSA), executed by Doyle and Oglethorpe Power Corporation (an electric 
membership corporation), on May 25, 1999 (Rate Schedule). Doyle 
adjusted a rate under its Rate Schedule, as agreed-to by the parties to 
the PPSA, to reflect the change in the Producer Price Index (PPI) for 
calendar year 2000.
    Copies of the filing were served upon Oglethorpe and on the Georgia 
Public Service Commission.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions and 
protests should be filed on or before March 9, 2001. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to be 
taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on 
the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-
2222 for assistance). Comments and protests may be filed electronically 
via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and 
the instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-5239 Filed 3-2-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### MEI CHANG OU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 07-75015.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 10, 2011.*

Filed Jan. 19, 2011.

J. Manuel Sanchez, Esq., J. Manuel Sanchez & Associates, San Ysidro, CA, for Petitioner.

CAS-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. Le-Fevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Mei Chang Ou, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the new standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act. *See Shrestha v. Holder,*590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir.2010). We deny the petition for review.

The agency found Ou not credible for several reasons, including Ou’s demeanor, as well as inconsistencies between Ou’s testimony at her merits hearing and asylum interview. In light of these findings, substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination. *See id.*at 1040-44 (adverse credibility determination was reasonable under the Real ID Act’s “totality of the circumstances”). Additionally, we reject Ou’s contention that the inconsistencies were the result of an unqualified hearing translator because Ou failed to identify any instances of incorrect translation. *See Kotasz v. INS,*31 F.3d 847, 850 n. 2 (9th Cir.1994). In the absence of credible testimony, Ou’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. *See Farah v. Ashcroft,*348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

Because Ou’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony found to be not credible, and she points to no other evidence the agency should have considered, substantial evidence also supports the denial of CAT relief. *See id.*at 1156-57.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           5,250
<SECURITIES>                                    45,236
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,678
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                           3,480
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  68,090
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,879
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           139
<OTHER-SE>                                      60,072
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    68,090
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                16,694
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   12,721
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,394
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (650)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    229
<INCOME-TAX>                                        91
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                138
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       138
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01


</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-38,253]

By letter of February 5, 2001, the company requested administrative reconsideration of the Department's denial of eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm.

                    The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination issued on December 18, 2000, and was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on January 11, 2001 (66 FR 2450). The investigation findings showed that employment did not decrease during the relevant time period.                

New information provided by the company show that employment of production workers decreased in January through November 2000, compared to January through November 1999.

At Intercontinental Branded Apparel, Ellwood Avenue, Buffalo, New York, production of coats declined in January through November 2000, compared to the same 1999 time period. During this same time period, company imports of men's suit coats increased.

## Conclusion

After careful review of the additional facts obtained on reconsideration, I conclude that increased imports of articles like or directly competitive with men's suit coats contributed importantly to the declines in sales or production and to the total or partial separation of workers of Intercontinental Branded Apparel, Ellwood Avenue, Buffalo, New York. In accordance with the provisions of the Act, I make the following certification: 

All workers of Intercontinental Branded Apparel, Ellwood Avenue, Buffalo, New York, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after October 17, 1999, through two years from the date of this certification are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974. 

Signed in Washington, DC, this 21st day of February, 2001.

Edward A. Tomchick,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. 01-5089 Filed 3-1-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Housing and Urban Development

          - [Docket No. FR-4649-N-08]

# AGENCY:

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.

# ACTION:

Announcement of OMB approval number. 

# SUMMARY:

The purpose of this notice is to announce the OMB approval number for the collection of information pertaining to Rental Rehabilitation Program.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Frank Price, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, NS., Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-2094. This is not a toll-free number.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended), this notice advises that OMB has responded to the Department's request for approval of the information collection pertaining to Rental Rehabilitation Program. The OMB approval number for this information collection is 2506-0080, which expires on January 31, 2004.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

Dated: February 15, 2001.

Donna M. Abbenante,

Acting General Deputy Assistant Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01-4789 Filed 2-26-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4210-29-M
#### Ricardo Pilar GUTIERREZ, Norma Gutierrez and Damian Gutierrez, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 08-73713.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 6, 2010.*

Filed Dec. 6, 2010.

*127Ricardo Pilar Gutierrez, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.

OIL, Daniel I. Smulow, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency Nos. [ AXXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXXX-XXX-XXX ].

Before: GOODWIN, RYMER, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Ricardo Pilar Gutierrez, Norma Gutierrez, and Damian Gutierrez, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order and denying their motion to remand based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a continuance, *Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey,*526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir.2008) (per curiam), and denial of a motion to remand, *Movsisian v. Ashcroft,*395 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.

The IJ did not abuse her discretion in denying a continuance where petitioners failed to demonstrate good cause to justify a fourth continuance. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (an IJ may grant a motion for continuance for good cause shown).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to remand where they failed to establish that former counsel’s failure to submit documents regarding the educational system in Mexico may have affected the outcome of their case. *See Rojas-Garcia, v. Ashcroft,*339 F.3d 814, 826 (9th Cir.2003) (to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim a petitioner must demonstrate prejudice).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 40 (Wednesday, February 28, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 12823]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-4935]


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

OVERSEAS PRIVATE INVESTMENT CORPORATION


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY: Overseas Private Investment Corporation.

PURPOSE: Public Hearing in conjunction with quarterly meeting of OPIC's 
Board of Directors, to afford an opportunity for any person to present 
views regarding the activities of the Corporation.

FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT:  66 FR 11188, 
February 22, 2001.

CHANGES IN THE MEETING: Public Hearing originally scheduled for 2:00 
p.m., Thursday, March 8, 2001 postponed.
    The Public Hearing previously scheduled for 2 p.m. on Thursday, 
March 8, 2001 has been postponed until further notice.

Connie M. Downs,
Corporate Secretary, Overseas Private Investment Corporation.
[FR Doc. 01-4935 Filed 2-23-01; 4:40 pm]
BILLING CODE 3210-10-M
# FY19Q1

# FY19Q2

# PFGE - User Notes
|Range of Assets      | Number of States
|-------------------- | ----------------
|0.5 billion          | 22              
|$0.5 - $1.0 billion  | 7 + PR          
|$1.1 - $10.0 billion | 14 + DC         
|$10.1 - $30 billion  | 4               
|$30 billion          | 3               

|State       | Assets         
|----------- | ---------------
|AK          | 3,031,465      
|AL          | 266,443        
|AR          | 259,492        
|AZ          | 1,153,702      
|CA          | 8,008,158      
|CO          | 1,305,779      
|CT          | 18,236,762     
|DC          | 2,189,658      
|DE          | 582,350        
|FL          | 17,030,635     
|GA          | 258,369        
|HI          | 84,424         
|IA          | 914,133        
|ID          | 55,867         
|IL          | 42,674,262     
|IN          | 311,825        
|KS          | 1,696,373      
|KY          | 114,931        
|LA          | 4,675,126      
|MA          | 26,632,401     
|MD          | 57,000         
|ME          | 2,228,177      
|MI          | 223,593        
|MN          | 1,708,828      
|MO          | 3,096,719      
|MS          | 374,434        
|MT          | 227,873        
|NC          | 74,553         
|ND          | 120,109        
|NE          | 402,185        
|NH          | 5,411,280      
|NJ          | 6,932,963      
|NM          | 740,827        
|NV          | 18,036         
|NY          | 51,768,130     
|OH          | 233,596        
|OK          | 6,712,651      
|OR          | 622,091        
|PA          | 14,314,608     
|PR          | 543,748        
|RI          | 600,706        
|SC          | 77,834         
|SD          | 743,698        
|TN          | 2,520,524      
|TX          | 93,394,331     
|UT          | 469,637        
|VA          | 296,464        
|VT          | 329,478        
|WA          | 761,672        
|WI          | 105,293        
|WV          | 1,243,004      
|WY          | 428,606        
|Grand Total | 356,408,758,622

Back to Chart