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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001026650
<NAME>                        Premier Research Worldwid
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     US

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                           JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                             MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                 1.00
<CASH>                                        26,623
<SECURITIES>                                   3,641
<RECEIVABLES>                                  6,209
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (687)
<INVENTORY>                                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              45,101
<PP&E>                                        11,196
<DEPRECIATION>                                 8,533
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                54,687
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          8,332
<BONDS>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                          75
<OTHER-SE>                                    36,780
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  36,855
<SALES>                                            0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               6,081
<CGS>                                              0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  3,239
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               3,469
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (355)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (142)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                0
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (213)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (0.03)



</TABLE>
EX-31 Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certification.

  Wells Fargo Asset Securities Corporation
  Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates,
  Series 2007-5

  I, Joshua Kelly, certify that:

  1.I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D
    required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on
    Form 10-K of the Wells Fargo Asset Securities Corporation, Mortgage
    Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-5 Trust (the "Exchange Act
    Periodic Reports");

  2.Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act Periodic Reports, taken as a
    whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit
    to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
    light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
    misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

  3.Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other
    information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period
    covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act Periodic Reports;

  4.I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the Master
    Servicer and based upon my knowledge and the compliance review
    conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement required in
    this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed
    in the Exchange Act Periodic Reports, the Master Servicer has fulfilled
    its obligations under the pooling and servicing agreement, dated April
    27, 2007, among Wells Fargo Asset Securities Corporation, as depositor,
    Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as master servicer, and HSBC Bank USA, National
    Association, as trustee, in all material respects; and

  5.All of the reports on assessment of compliance with the servicing
    criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation
    reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for
    asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in
    accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules
    13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report,
    except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of
    noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this
    report on Form 10-K.

    Dated:   March 25, 2008


    /s/ Joshua Kelly
    Signature

    Vice President
    (senior officer in charge of the servicing function of the master
    servicer)
# FDIC Income and Rent Limits
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          11,098
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,398
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (174)
<INVENTORY>                                      7,183
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                20,810
<PP&E>                                           1,653
<DEPRECIATION>                                    (349)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  22,210
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,680
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            17
<OTHER-SE>                                      18,513
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    22,210
<SALES>                                         24,198
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                25,061
<CGS>                                           21,735
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   25,811
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (167)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (583)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (583)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (583)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.03)
        

</TABLE>
2009-0897.

#### State v. Fischer.

Summit App. No. 24406, 2009-Ohio-1491.

On motion for reconsideration. The motion for reconsideration is granted to the following extent: The discretionary appeal is accepted on Proposition of Law No. I. The Clerk shall issue an order for the transmittal of the record from the Court of Appeals for Summit County, and the parties shall brief this ease in accordance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio.

Moyer, C.J., and Pfeifer and Lanzinger, JJ., would grant the motion as to all Propositions of Law.

Lundberg Stratton, O’Donnell, and Cupp, JJ., dissent and would deny the motion for reconsideration.
**Exhibit 13.1**

 

  

**Officer Certifications Pursuant to Section 906**

**of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

**(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)**

 

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Empresa Distribuidora y Comercializadora Norte S.A., a sociedad anónima organized under the laws of Argentina (the “Company”), does hereby certify to such officer’s knowledge that:

The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2017 (the “Form 20-F”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

 

 Date: April 26, 2018.

                       

                                                                                           

 

 Date: April 26, 2018.
#### Rafael ROMERO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 13-7568.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 24, 2014.

Decided: April 28, 2014.

Rafael Romero, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Slaymaker Sale,- Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Rafael Romero, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Romero v. Warden,*No. 1:13— cv-00036-JFM, 2013 WL 4507597 (D.Md. Aug. 22, 2013). We deny Romero’s motion for this court to order a missing document and his motion to amend. 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.*
#### Shroyer, Appellant, *v.*Banks, Warden, Appellee.

[Cite as *Shroyer v. Banks,*123 Ohio St.3d 88, 2009-Ohio-40080.]

(No. 2009-0599

Submitted August 11, 2009

Decided August 19, 2009.)

James R. Shroyer, pro se.

Richard Cordray, Attorney General, and Samuel Peterson, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the petition of appellant, James R. Shroyer, for a writ of habeas corpus. Habeas corpus is not available to challenge the validity of a charging instrument. *McCuller v. Hudson,*121 Ohio St.3d 168, 2009-Ohio-721, 902 N.E.2d 979, ¶1. In addition, Shroyer’s plea of guilty to the charges contained in the bill of information waived his claimed right to an indictment. *State ex rel. Morris v. Leonard*(1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 624, 625, 716 N.E.2d 208. Finally, Shroyer’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is not cognizable in habeas corpus. *Everett v. Eberlin,*114 Ohio St.3d 199, 2007-Ohio-3832, 870 N.E.2d 1190, ¶ 6.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE SECOND
QUARTER 2000 10-Q OF INTERNATIONAL SPECIALTY PRODUCTS INC. AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUL-02-2000
<CASH>                                              13,112
<SECURITIES>                                       419,324
<RECEIVABLES>                                       92,380
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                        148,515
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   793,280
<PP&E>                                             566,834
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,896,613
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              274,839
<BONDS>                                            813,699
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                               695
<OTHER-SE>                                         635,449
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,896,613
<SALES>                                            398,198
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   398,198
<CGS>                                              256,400
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      256,400
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  40,915
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     26,985
<INCOME-TAX>                                         9,454
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 17,531
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                        17,531
<EPS-BASIC>                                            .25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          .25


</TABLE>
#### David O. WOSSUM; Sandra O. Wossum, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. CLUB CAR, INC; Ingersoll-Rand Company, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 10-40470.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Feb. 3, 2011.

Stephen Paul Carrigan, Esq., Diane S. Manson, Esq., Carrigan Law Firm, L.L.P., Houston, TX, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Carlos Alberto Villarreal, Esq., Richard C. Woolsey, McKibben, Woolsey & Villarreal, L.L.P., Corpus Christi, TX, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before GARZA, STEWART, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

AFFIRMED. *See 5th*Cir. R. 47.6.

*

 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 ANNOUNCEMENTS

*January 15, 2010*

[Cite as *01/1512010 Case Announcements,*2010-Ohio-84.]

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

2009-1847.

#### Turner v. Levin.

Board of Tax Appeals, No. 2007-K-768. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Board of Tax Appeals. Upon review of the notice of appeal,

It is ordered by the court, sua sponte, that appellant show cause, in writing, within fourteen days of the date of this order, why the appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to appellant’s failure to specify in his notice of appeal the “errors complained of’ as required by R.C. 5717.04.

The briefing schedule in this case is stayed until further notice.
#### Darla R. FLOYD; Dana Nichole Floyd, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-1722.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 2, 2007.

Decided: March 13, 2007.

John R. Murphy, Adam J. Neil, Murphy & Grantland, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. John Shannon Nichols, Bluestein *&*Nichols, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina; Bryan D. Ramey, Bryan D. Ramey & Associates, Piedmont, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company appeals the district court’s order reforming Darla Floyd’s insurance policy to include underinsured motorist coverage and allowing Floyd to stack the coverage on her vehicles. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Floyd v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.,*No. 6:04-cv-01305-GRA (D.S.C. May 18, 2006). 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.*
#### Jose Alfonso MONTES-ESTRELLA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-74427.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 20, 2007.*

Filed Feb. 23, 2007.

Jose Alfonso Montes-Estrella, Milan, NM, pro se.

Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, San Francisco, CA, District Counsel, Office of the District Chief Counsel, Phoenix, AZ, Mary Jane Candaux, Esq., Thomas Fatouros, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

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

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Jose Alfonso Montes-Estrella, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his motion to reopen. We dismiss the petition for review.

Montes-Estrella departed the United States pursuant to a 1996 deportation order. In April of 2002, he was convicted of illegally re-entering the United States and was sentenced to 57 months in prison. The record does not indicate that proceedings have been initiated to remove Montes-Estrella a second time. In December of 2002, Montes-Estrella filed a notice of appeal of the 1996 deportation order, seeking to apply for a waiver of deportation pursuant to former 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c). The agency construed the notice of appeal as a motion to reopen.

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s order summarily affirming the IJ’s denial of Montes-Estrella’s motion to reopen because Montes-Estrella is not subject to a new final order of removal. *See 8*U.S.C. § 1252 (limiting judicial review to final orders of removal). To the extent Montes-Estrella seeks review of the 1996 deportation order, we lack jurisdiction because he departed the United States pursuant to that order. *See*former 8 U.S.C. § 1105a; *Kon v. Gonzales,*400 F.3d 1225, 1226 (9th Cir.2005).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 15.1

August 12, 2002

Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549

Commissioners:

We are aware that our report dated July 16, 2002 on our review of interim
financial information of Southwest Bancorporation of Texas, Inc. and
subsidiaries (the "Company') as of and for the period ended June 30, 2002 and
included in the Company's quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter then
ended is incorporated by reference in its Registration Statements on Form S-3
(File Nos. 333-80603 and 333-60190) and Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-76269,
333-21619, 333-55685, 333-33533 and 333-36092).

Very truly yours,

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
[No. 35058-1-II.

Division Two.

August 7, 2007.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Scott Christopher Smith, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Clark County, No. 03-2-03086-8, John P. Wulle, J., entered May 16, 2006. *Reversed*and *remanded*by unpublished opinion per Van Deren, A.C.J., concurred in by Bridgewater and Hunt. JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2896 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2896

    To require disclosure by lobbyists of convictions for bribery, 
    extortion, embezzlement, illegal kickbacks, tax evasion, fraud, 
   conflicts of interest, making false statements, perjury, or money 
                              laundering.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 22, 2018

  Mr. Kennedy (for himself and Mr. Manchin) introduced the following 
 bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland 
                   Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To require disclosure by lobbyists of convictions for bribery, 
    extortion, embezzlement, illegal kickbacks, tax evasion, fraud, 
   conflicts of interest, making false statements, perjury, or money 
                              laundering.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Justice Against Corruption on K 
Street Act of 2018'' or the ``JACK Act''.

SEC. 2. DISCLOSURE OF CORRUPT MALPRACTICE BY LOBBYISTS.

    (a) Registration.--Section 4(b) of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 
1995 (2 U.S.C. 1603(b)) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (5), by striking ``and'' at the end;
            (2) in paragraph (6), by striking the period at the end and 
        inserting ``; and''; and
            (3) by inserting after paragraph (6) the following:
            ``(7) for any registrant who was convicted in a Federal or 
        State court of an offense involving bribery, extortion, 
        embezzlement, an illegal kickback, tax evasion, fraud, a 
        conflict of interest, making a false statement, perjury, or 
        money laundering, the date of the conviction and a description 
        of the offense.''.
    (b) Quarterly Reports.--Section 5(b) of the Lobbying Disclosure Act 
of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1604(b)) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (4), by striking ``and'' at the end;
            (2) in paragraph (5), by striking the period at the end and 
        inserting ``; and''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(6) for any registrant who was convicted in a Federal or 
        State court of an offense involving bribery, extortion, 
        embezzlement, an illegal kickback, tax evasion, fraud, a 
        conflict of interest, making a false statement, perjury, or 
        money laundering, the date of the conviction and a description 
        of the offense.''.
                                 <all>
```
2009-1998.

#### Ward v. Summa Health Sys.

Summit App. No. 24567, 184 Ohio App.3d 254, 2009-Ohio-4859. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Summit County. Upon consideration of appellees’ motion to supplement the record,

It is ordered by the court that the motion is granted.

It is further ordered that the clerk of courts for Summit County shall supplement the record with the deposition of Virginia Abell, R.N., within 20 days of the date of this entry.