alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 42 (Friday, March 2, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 13073]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-5021]

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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Notice of Proposals To Engage in Permissible Nonbanking 
Activities or To Acquire Companies That Are Engaged in Permissible 
Nonbanking Activities

    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 
4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and 
Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225) to engage de novo, or to acquire or 
control voting securities or assets of a company, including the 
companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a 
subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in 
Sec. 225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has 
determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible 
for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities 
will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank 
indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the 
offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their 
views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the 
standards of section 4 of the BHC Act. Additional information on all 
bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information 
Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be 
received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of 
Governors not later than March 16, 2001.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Cynthia C. Goodwin, Vice 
President) 104 Marietta Street, N.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-2713:
    1. Southern Community Bancorp, Orlando, Florida; to retain 50 
percent equity interest in Southern Community Banc Mortgage, LLC, 
Longwood, Florida, and thereby continue to engage in brokering loans, 
pursuant to Sec.  225.28(b)(1) of Regulation Y.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, February 26, 
2001.
Robert deV. Frierson
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 01-5021 Filed 3-1-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
```
#### Leroy LINCOLN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Nancy ROUSE; The Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 10-6288.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 28, 2011.

Decided: Feb. 9, 2011.

Leroy Lincoln, Appellant Pro Se. Gary E. O’Connor, Office of the Attorney Gener*611al of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Leroy Lincoln seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A cer-tifícate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003).

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Lincoln has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-Q
(9-30-97) AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                      23,766,548
<SECURITIES>                                21,883,297
<RECEIVABLES>                               10,328,395
<ALLOWANCES>                                   256,900
<INVENTORY>                                  4,687,665
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            62,076,883
<PP&E>                                       7,154,893
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,079,445
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              68,293,703
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,777,438
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       249,100
<OTHER-SE>                                  59,550,081
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                68,293,703
<SALES>                                     33,350,725
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            33,350,725
<CGS>                                       13,175,780
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               13,175,780
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            13,147,599
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         (1,130,253)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              8,157,599
<INCOME-TAX>                                 3,177,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          4,980,599
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 4,980,599
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .19
        

</TABLE>
Order entered November 20 , 2018

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 18 - 00802 - CV HOSSEIN S. NAMDARKHA N AND BARDIA NAMDARK HAN, Appellant V. GLAST, PHILLIPS & MU RRAY, P. C., MARK C. ENOCH, MARK C. ENOCH, PC, A ND MATTHEW ENOCH, Appellee s On Appeal from the 193rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 16 - 00853



### O RDER Before the Court is the November 16, 2018 motion of appellant Bardia Namdar khan for an extension of time to file a brief. We GRANT the motion and extend the time to Monday, December 17, 2018

.
/s/ ADA BROWN JUSTICE
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 42 (Friday, March 2, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 13065]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-5101]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP01-222-000]


The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power; Notice of Filing

February 26, 2001.
    Take notice that on February 1, 2001, the Los Angeles Department of 
Water and Power (LADWP) filed an emergency petition pursuant to Rule 
207(a)(4) and (5) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. 
The filing requests that the Commission immediately rescind the portion 
of Order No. 637 that removed the price cap for short-term capacity 
releases for service to the California border and to points of 
interconnection between interstate pipelines and California local 
distribution companies until March 31, 2001. LADWP further requests 
that the Commission initiate a proceeding that will allow the 
Commission to determine by March 31, 2001, if the removal of the price 
cap on short-term transactions associated with the California market is 
warranted.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed on or 
before March 2, 2001. Protests will be considered by the Commission in 
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to 
make protesters parties in 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 
in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web 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

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-5101 Filed 3-1-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
**POWER OF ATTORNEY**

  The undersigned hereby constitutes and appoints each of Margaret M. Foran, Gene  A. Capello, Lawrence A. Fox and Claire G. Keyles as his true and lawful attorney-in-fact  and agent, and grants each of them full power to act on behalf of the undersigned  and in his name, place and stead, in any and all capacities, for the purpose  of completing and signing, on his behalf, 

> 
    - any Form 3, Form 4 or Form 5 required or permitted to be filed by him pursuant    to Section 16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange    Act"),     - any Form 144 required to be filed by him under the Securities Act of 1933,    as amended (the "Securities Act"), and Rule 144 promulgated thereunder,    and    - any and all other documents necessary or desirable to facilitate the filing    by him of Form 144 and of forms under Section 16 of the Exchange Act, 

  with regard to the undersigned's ownership of or transactions in securities  of Pfizer Inc., including, without limitation, the power to complete and sign  any and all amendments to such forms and documents, if any, and to file such  forms and documents and amendments thereto with the Securities and Exchange  Commission, and to do and perform each and every act and thing requisite or  necessary to be done in connection with such forms and documents and amendments  thereto, as fully and to all intents and purposes as the undersigned might or  could do in person. 

The authority of Margaret M. Foran, Gene A. Capello, Lawrence A. Fox and Claire  G. Keyles under this Power of Attorney shall continue until the undersigned  is no longer required to file Form 3, Form 4, Form 5 or Form 144 with regard  to the undersigned's ownership of or transactions in securities of Pfizer Inc.,  unless earlier revoked in writing. The undersigned acknowledges that Margaret  M. Foran, Gene A. Capello, Lawrence A. Fox and Claire G. Keyles are not assuming  any of the undersigned's responsibilities to comply with Rule 144 under the  Securities Act or Section 16 of the Exchange Act.

  Signature: /s/ Suzanne M. Nora Johnson  Suzanne M. Nora Johnson

Date: September 19, 2007
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<CIK>                         0001026488
<NAME>                        MICRO-HYDRO POWER, INC.                       
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          10,535
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       3
<OTHER-SE>                                    (10,538)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   0
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (.01)
        


</TABLE>
<PAGE>
 
Exhibit 11.01
                                  ONSALE, INC.
                       CALCULATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                     (In thousands, except per share data)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                        Three months ended           Six months ended
                                                                             June 30,                    June 30,
                                                                       -------------------          ------------------
                                                                          1997      1996              1997      1996
                                                                       ---------  --------          ---------  -------
<S>                                                                    <C>        <C>               <C>         <C>
Net income (loss)                                                       $  (226)   $   100           $  (174)  $   115
                                                                        =======    =======           =======   =======
Weighted average common and common equivalent shares:

Common stock                                                             16,356     13,883            15,844    13,883
 
Common stock equivalents from convertible preferred stock                     -          -                 -         -
  and warrants using the "if converted" method                                -          -                 -         -
 
Common stock equivalents from stock options using the
  "treasury stock" method                                                     -      1,443                 -     1,443
                                                                        -------    -------           -------   -------
 
Shares used in calculation of net income (loss) per share                16,356     15,326            15,844    15,326
                                                                        =======    =======           =======   =======
         
Net income (loss) per share                                             $ (0.01)   $  0.00           $ (0.01)   $ 0.01
                                                                        =======    =======           =======   =======
</TABLE>
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1


                              YURIE SYSTEMS, INC.


                 COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON AND COMMON
              EQUIVALENT SHARES FOR THE THREE MONTH PERIODS ENDED
                            MARCH 31, 1997 AND 1996

                                  (UNAUDITED)



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
 
 
                                                                   
                                           MARCH 31,       MARCH 31, 
                                             1997            1996
                                          -----------     -----------   
<S>                                       <C>             <C>     
 
Net Income                                $   914,812     $ 1,053,712
                                          ===========     ===========     
Average shares outstanding during the                                 
 period                                    23,063,511      20,208,400 
 
Dilutive effect of stock options after
 application of treasury stock method       1,676,749       1,542,408
                                          -----------     -----------     

Average number of shares and equivalent
 shares outstanding during the period      24,740,260      21,750,808
                                          ===========     =========== 
Earnings per common and common
     equivalent share                     $       .04     $       .05
                                          ===========     =========== 
</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
BALANCE SHEET OF RENAISSANCE GOLF PRODUCTS INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES AS OF DECEMBER
31 1998 AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          63,184
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  411,311<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  2,771,439<F2>
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,261,834
<PP&E>                                         465,413<F3>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,507,247
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,500,422
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          3
<COMMON>                                         7,498
<OTHER-SE>                                 (3,020,676)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,507,247
<SALES>                                      6,987,509
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,987,509
<CGS>                                        6,194,129
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,258,662
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             701,425
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (5,166,707)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       900
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (5,167,607)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (5,167,607)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.95)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.64)
<FN>
<F1>NET OF ALLOWANCES
<F2>INCLUDES $497,838 DEPOSITS MADE ON INVENTORY.
<F3>NET OF ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
2009-1323.

#### Garr v. Warden, Madison Corr. Inst.

Certified Question of State Law, United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, No. 1:08CV293. On review of preliminary memoranda pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. XVIII(6). The court will answer the following question:

> ‘Whether the Supreme Court of Ohio’s decision in *State v. Chandler,*109 Ohio St.3d 223, 2006-Ohio-2285, as described in the syllabus of the court, to wit: ‘[a] substance offered for sale must contain some detectable amount of the relevant controlled substance before a person can be sentenced as a major drug offender under Ohio Revised Code § 2925.03(C)(4)(g),’ extends to eases where the substance offered for sale was never observed, tested, or recovered to ascertain whether it contained a detectable amount of the controlled substance, but no affirmative evidence was presented to call into question the defendant’s representation in his offer to sell, or to refute the jury’s factual finding, that the substance was in fact a controlled substance in an amount that equaled or exceeded 1000 grams.”

O’Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., dissent.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-1812

WAYNE L. DAVIS, Plaintiff – Appellant,

v. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PERSONNEL; RACHEL O'DWYER FLYNN; ART DAHLBERG; FARRAL HENDERSON; BONNIE FRIEDMAN; ROY W. EIDEM; ALAN W. MCMAHAM; DYETT ELLIS; MICHELLE COWARD; KEISHA STEPHENSON; DWIGHT C. JONES, Mayor, City of Richmond; TIMOTHY KAINE, Governor; WILLIAM C. SHELTON, State Director, the Jackson Center; NORMAN B. SALES, Richmond City Attorney; GREGORY A. LUKANUSKI, Assistant Attorney, Office of the City Attorney; BILL MIMS, Attorney General, Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:09-cv-00133-REP)

Submitted: November 9, 2009 Decided: December 22, 2009

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wayne L. Davis, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Wayne L. Davis seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his complaint without prejudice. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order Davis seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392 , 10 F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We deny Davis’s motion to reconsider our previous order denying his motion for stay pending appeal. 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.

DISMISSED