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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                           8,228
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   51,027
<ALLOWANCES>                                       352
<INVENTORY>                                     73,967
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               143,105
<PP&E>                                         401,545
<DEPRECIATION>                                 184,850
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 378,354
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           44,874
<BONDS>                                         37,423
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        14,869
<OTHER-SE>                                     231,035
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   378,354
<SALES>                                        285,029
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               291,760
<CGS>                                          212,492
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  212,492
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,801
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    61
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,156
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 27,239
<INCOME-TAX>                                    10,215
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             17,024
<DISCONTINUED>                                   9,656
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    26,680
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.66
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.65


</TABLE>
Exhibit 35.3

SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (Item 1123)

Homecomings Financial, LLC

RFMSI Series 2007-S4 Trust (the Issuing Entity)

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Homecomings Financial, LLC, as servicer (the Servicer) pursuant to the applicable servicing agreement, does hereby certify that:

1. A review of the Servicers activities during the period from and including April 27, 2007 through and including September 24, 2007 and of the
Servicers performance under the applicable servicing agreement has been made under my supervision.

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such
review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the applicable servicing agreement in all material respects throughout such period.

IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 24th day of March 2008.



|       |  |                     
|------ |  | --------------------
|By:    |  | /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
|Name:  |  | Anthony N. Renzi    
|Title: |  | Managing Director
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   7,574
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,422
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        60,600
<OTHER-SE>                                    (67,448)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     7,574
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,986
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,986)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,986)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,986)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0



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


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                             345,554
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,669,523
<ALLOWANCES>                                       101,603
<INVENTORY>                                      5,225,879
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,310,624
<PP&E>                                           4,221,315
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,302,085
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  14,122,590
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,373,837
<BONDS>                                            143,271
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            68,250
<OTHER-SE>                                      11,537,232
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    14,122,590
<SALES>                                         10,824,203
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                10,824,203
<CGS>                                            6,596,992
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,076,921
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    (7,175)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  97,998
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (245,543)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         6,805
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (252,348)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (252,348)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (0.04)
        


</TABLE>
#### Michelle Barbara BUSH, Petitioner, v. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Respondent, and Jill E. Coleman, Respondent.

No. 2010-3113.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Oct. 27, 2010.

Before LINN, DYK, and PROST, Circuit Judges.

ON MOTION

PER CURIAM.

ORDER

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) moves to waive Fed. Cir. R. 27(f) and to dismiss this petition for review as untimely. Michelle Barbara Bush also submits a response to this court’s May 20, 2010 order directing her to show cause why this petition should not be dismissed and requests a hearing.

In March of 2010, Bush filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging fraud related to a 1996 Merit Systems Protection Board decision. The district court treated the complaint as seeking review of the Board decision and transferred the complaint to this court. In 1996, the statute governing our review of a petition for review of a Board decision required that the petition be received within 30 days after the date the petitioner received notice of the final *323order or decision of the Board. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1) (1996).*

The filing period provided by § 7703(b)(1) is “statutory, mandatory, [and] jurisdictional.” *Monzo v. Dep’t of Transp.,*735 F.2d 1335, 1336 (Fed.Cir.1984); *see also Bowles v. Russell,*551 U.S. 205, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007) (the timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement that cannot be waived).

Because Bush is attempting to seek review of a 1996 Board decision more than 13 years after it issued, we lack jurisdiction over her petition. *Oja v. Dep’t of Army,*405 F.3d 1349 (Fed.Cir.2005) (dismissing as untimely a petition that was transferred from district court, when filing date at district court was beyond time to seek review of Board decision by this court). We must therefore grant the FTC’s motion and dismiss this petition as untimely.

Accordingly,

It Is Ordered That:

(1) The FTC’s motions are granted. The petition is dismissed.

(2) Bush’s motion for a hearing is denied.

(3) The stay is lifted.

(4) Each side shall bear its own costs.

*

In 1998, the statute was amended to allow 60 days to seek review of a Board decision.
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-09]

# 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 24 CFR part 570—Community Development Block Grant Entitlement Program.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Sue Miller, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-1577. 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 24 CFR Part 570—Community Development Block Grant Entitlement Program. The OMB approval number for this information collection is 2506-0077, 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. 01-4790 Filed 2-26-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4210-29-M
#### David Alan CARMICHAEL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kathleen SEBELIUS, in her official capacity as Secretary U.S. Dept. Health & Human Services; Commonwealth Of Virginia, and its officers named herein acting in their official capacity under the color of State Law; Carolyn W. Colvin, in her official capacity as Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 13-2546.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 22, 2014.

Decided: April 25, 2014.

David Alan Carmichael, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Holland Hambrick, Assistant United States Attorney, John David Gil-body, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appel-lees.

Before SHEDD and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

*233Affirmed as modified in part; affirmed in part by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

David Alan Carmichael appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action challenging the requirements that he provide a social security number to apply for a Virginia diver’s license and that his record with the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles contain his social security number.

The district court properly determined that the Rooker-Feldman* doctrine barred counts II and VIII of the complaint and the portion of count V not alleging a violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. A dismissal under the *Rooker-Feldman*doctrine is a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, *Adkins v. Rumsfeld,*464 F.3d 456, 463 (4th Cir.2006), and thus should be without prejudice. *S. Walk at Broadlands Homeowner’s Assoc., Inc. v. OpenBand at Broadlands, LLC,*713 F.3d 175, 185 (4th Cir.2013). We therefore modify the district court’s order to reflect that the dismissal of these counts is without prejudice, and we affirm the dismissal as modified. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2106 (2012); *MM ex rel. DM v. Sch. Dist. of Greenville Cnty.,*303 F.3d 523, 536 (4th Cir.2002) (“[W]e are entitled to affirm the court’s judgment on alternate grounds, if such grounds are apparent from the record.”).

With respect to the district court’s dismissal of Carmichael’s remaining counts for relief, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, as to those counts, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Carmichael v. Sebelius,*No. 3:13-cv-00129-JAG, 2013 WL 5755618 (E.D.Va. Oct. 23, 2013). We deny Carmichael’s motion to schedule oral argument and 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 AS MODIFIED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART.*

*

*D.C. Ct.App. v. Feldman,*460 U.S. 462, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983); *Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co.,*263 U.S. 413, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       2,801,422
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       6,300,797
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 82,186,644
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                       6,300,797
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                         6,672,096
<LOANS>                                    192,841,796
<ALLOWANCE>                                    604,187
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             294,216,748
<DEPOSITS>                                 204,316,774
<SHORT-TERM>                                15,000,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          2,705,042
<LONG-TERM>                                  5,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    35,236,973
<OTHER-SE>                                  31,957,959
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             294,216,748
<INTEREST-LOAN>                             14,954,452
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            4,654,727
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               449,184
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            20,058,363
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           9,496,129
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           9,782,409
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                       10,275,954
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              4,637,459
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              6,063,653
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   6,063,653
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,908,653
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.98
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.98
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.88
<LOANS-NON>                                    250,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               608,739
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    4,552
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              604,187
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           171,277
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        433,133
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-30257

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

LONNIE INGRAM,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:11-CR-245-1

Before WIENER, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Lonnie Ingram appeals the 120-month statutory maximum sentence

imposed after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. A

stipulated factual basis established that Ingram attempted to shoot one man in

the head, but the gun failed to fire. On a second attempt, Ingram missed the

intended victim but shot another man. While in jail, Ingram urged his

associates to persuade or coerce the shooting victim to deny that Ingram had

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 21, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

Case: 12-30257 Document: 00511995113 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/21/2012
No. 12-30257

shot him. At sentencing, Ingram attempted to deny the accuracy of the factual

basis. 

Ingram contends that the district court erred by increasing the sentence

for obstruction of justice and by failing to reduce the sentence for acceptance of

responsibility. Ingram’s attempts to cause the victim to exonerate him

amounted to obstruction with respect to the relevant conduct and sentencing for

the offense of conviction. See U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 & comment. (n.4(A)). Ingram has

shown no “extraordinary” circumstances warranting a reduction for acceptance

of responsibility in light of the increase for obstruction of justice. See United

States v. Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d 204, 211 (5th Cir. 2008); § 3E1.1, comment.

(n.4). Ingram’s timely guilty plea alone did not entitle him to the reduction for

acceptance of responsibility. See § 3E1.1, comment. (n.3). Moreover, in

contradiction of the factual basis, he attempted to avoid responsibility by telling

the court at sentencing that he never did what the Government accused him of

doing. The district court committed no error, plain or otherwise, by denying

creditfor acceptance of responsibility and increasing the sentence for obstruction

of justice. 

We need not resolve Ingram’s assertion that the district court erred by

denying a motion to continue sentencing, by allowing the Government’s late

objection to the PSR, and by applying the attempted-murder guideline. See FED.

R. CRIM. P. 52; Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 134-35 (2009). Any error

did not affect Ingram’s substantial rights and was therefore harmless because

the court emphatically stated that, based on the stipulated facts, it would have

imposed the same sentence under § 3553(a) regardless of the Government’s

objection and arguments about the sentence. See United States v. Richardson,

676 F.3d 491, 511 (5th Cir. 2012).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 12-30257 Document: 00511995113 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/21/2012
Order entered January 1 8 , 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 18
- 00213
- CV
MICHAEL DWAIN WILLIA MS, Appellant

V. LUPE VALDEZ, SHERIFF , Appellee On Appeal from the 160th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 17
- 09709



### O RDER Before the Court is appellant’s January 15, 2019 “request to order trial court clerk to supplement clerk ’ s record as properly and timely sought by appellant

. ” Ap pellant seeks to have
filed a supplemental clerk’s record containing certain cover letters he asserts are “relevant . . . [to] support a claim for unconstitutional interference with access to courts by the trial court clerk.” Appellant asserts he asked t he trial court clerk t o supplement the record by letter dated December 6, 2018 , and, as of this date , the supplemental record has not been filed

. A copy of the
December 6 th letter was receiv ed by this Court December 11, 2018.
We GRANT the request and ORDE R Dallas County District Clerk Felicia Pitre to file, no later than January 28, 2019, a supplemental clerk’s record containing a copy of the coverletters itemized in the December letter , which is attached

. If any of the requested items cannot

be located, Ms. Pitre shall state so in writing.
We DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to send a copy of this order and December letter to Ms. Pitre and all parties.
/s/ BILL WHITEHILL JUSTICE
#### David MITCHELL, Sr., Claimant-Appellant, v. Robert A. McDONALD, Secretary Of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 2014-7074.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Aug. 13, 2014.

Phyllis Jo Baunach, Esq., Senior Trial Attorney, Department of Justice, David J. Barrans, Deputy Assistant General Counsel, Amanda Blackmon, Attorney, Department of Veterans Affairs Office of General Counsel, Washington, DC, for Respondent-Appellee.

ON MOTION

ORDER

David Mitchell, Sr. moves to withdraw his appeal.

Upon consideration thereof,

It Is Ordered That:

(1) The motion is granted. The appeal is dismissed.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.