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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 BALANCE SHEET AND INCOME STATEMENT AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          34,166
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                9,393,333
<ALLOWANCES>                                   120,581
<INVENTORY>                                 14,736,117
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            25,145,888
<PP&E>                                       7,422,178
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,481,633
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              28,617,775
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       11,589,936
<BONDS>                                     25,722,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        18,547
<OTHER-SE>                                 (8,712,708)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                28,617,775
<SALES>                                     32,441,677
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            32,441,677
<CGS>                                       25,435,827
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               29,638,818
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,807,142
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                995,717
<INCOME-TAX>                                   354,138
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            641,579
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   641,579
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.35
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 23.1  CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING
FIRM  We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements
No. 333-145591 and No. 333-150849 on Forms S-8 of our report dated March 17,
2008 (August 27, 2008, as to the effects of the restatement discussed in Note
19) (which report expresses an unqualified opinion on the financial statements
and includes an explanatory paragraph referring to the financial statement
presentation on a predecessor basis and allocations from Travelport Limited and
Cendant Corporation and an explanatory paragraph relating to the restatement
discussed in Note 19), relating to the consolidated financial statements and
financial statement schedule of Orbitz Worldwide, Inc. and subsidiaries (the Company)
on a Successor basis as of December 31, 2007 and 2006 and for the year ended
December 31, 2007 and the period from August 23, 2006 through December 31,
2006, and the combined consolidated financial statements of the Company on a
Predecessor basis for the period from January 1, 2006 through August 22, 2006,
and the year ended December 31, 2005, appearing in this Annual Report on Form
10-K/A of Orbitz Worldwide, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2007.   DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP  Chicago, Illinois August 27, 2008
#### Andrey Sergeyevich LYABAKH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 09-72159.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 10, 2011.*

Filed Jan. 18, 2011.

*181Andrey Sergeyevich Lyabakh, Spokane, WA, pro se.

Donald Anthony Couvillon, Esquire, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, 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 **

Andrey Sergeyevich Lyabakh, a native and citizen of Ukraine, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to remand and dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his 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 factual findings, *Nagoulko v. INS,*333 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir.2003), and for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to remand, *Romero-Ruiz v. Mukasey,*538 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir.2008). We deny the petition for review.

The agency found Lyabakh ineligible for asylum based on his conviction for an aggravated felony. Lyabakh does not challenge this dispositive finding in his opening brief.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of withholding of removal because Lyabakh failed to demonstrate a clear probability of persecution based on either his religion or his refusal to serve in the Ukrainian military due to his religion. *See Nagoulko,*333 F.3d at 1018 (fear of future harm is too speculative); *Zehatye v. Gonzales,*453 F.3d 1182, 1187-88 (9th Cir.2006) (evidence did not compel the conclusion that petitioner would be singled out for severe disproportionate punishment on the basis of a protected ground for refusal to serve in the military on religious grounds). Lyabakh’s assertion that the agency failed to consider his and his mother’s testimony is belied by the record. Accordingly, his withholding of removal claim fails.

*182Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Lyabakh did not establish it is more likely than not he will be tortured upon return to Ukraine. *See Wakkary v. Holder,*558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir.2009). Accordingly, his CAT claim fails.

Finally, the agency was within its discretion in denying Lyabakh’s motion to remand because the BIA considered the evidence submitted and acted within its broad discretion in determining that the evidence was insufficient to warrant remand. *See Romero-Ruiz,*538 F.3d at 1063-64; *see also*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c) (evidence submitted with a motion to reopen must be material and previously unavailable at the former hearing).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
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-04]

# 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 Rural Housing and Economic Development Program.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Phyllis Williams, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW. Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-3484. 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 Youthbuild Program. The OMB approval number for this information collection is 2506-0142, which expires on September 30, 2003.

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. 01-4785 Filed 2-26-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4210-29-M
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose CARRILLO-HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-51196

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

March 7, 2007.

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

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

Before KING, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

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

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
**Exhibit32**

 

# CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Each of the undersignedhereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, in his capacity as anofficer of Mid-State Bancshares (the “Company”) that to our knowledge theQuarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company atthe end of such period and the results of operations of the Company for suchperiod.

 

 
| Date: July 30, 2004 | /s/ James W. Lokey                                                                    |   |
|---------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                | JAMES W. LOKEY                                                                        |   |
|                | President and  Chief Executive Officer  (Principal Executive Officer)                 |
|                |                                                                                  |
|                |                                                                                  |
| Date: July 30, 2004 | /s/ James G. Stathos                                                                  |   |
|                | JAMES G. STATHOS                                                                      |   |
|                | Executive Vice President and  Chief Financial Officer  (Principal Accounting Officer) |
|                     |                                                                                       |        |  |

 

 

***Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906, or otherdocument authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signaturethat appears in typed form within the electronic version of this writtenstatement required by Section 906, has been provided to Mid-State Bancsharesand will be retained by Mid-State Bancshares and furnished to the Securitiesand Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.***

 

1

----
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jeffrey Russell BROWN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-30194.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Feb. 7, 2007.

Filed Feb. 27, 2007.

*653Aaron N. Lucoff, Esq., USBO — OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY, Boise, ID, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Dennis M. Charney, Esq., Eagle, ID, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: THOMPSON, KLEINFELD, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Jeffrey Russell Brown appeals the denial of his motion to suppress evidence found from a search of his car and incriminating statements he made during and after the search. We affirm.

*1. The Search.*

Under *Illinois v. Caballes,*the police may perform a dog sniff of the exterior of a car during a traffic stop without any need for suspicion of contraband.1 What they cannot do without reasonable suspicion is prolong a traffic stop “beyond the time reasonably required” to issue a ticket in order to perform the dog sniff.2

Here, the time that elapsed from the beginning of the traffic stop to when the K9 officer alerted to the presence of drugs was only 11 or 12 minutes, not “beyond the time reasonably required” to issue a ticket. The evidence supported the district court’s findings that the police officer was, in good faith, just finishing writing the ticket when the K9 unit arrived, and that the dog sniff was completed within the next minute or two. Defendant’s own conduct contributed to the additional minute or two and the defendant consented to the dog sniff. Moreover, by the time the officer was completing the ticket, reasonable suspicion existed for a *Terry*stop.

*654*2. The Incriminating Statements.*

The defendant’s right to a lawyer3 did not attach until he was subjected to “custodial interrogation.”4 The exchange between Brown and the police directing the defendant to turn over his car keys, asking the defendant his name, etc., was not “interrogation” (whether custodial or not) because it was not “reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response.”5 Brown asked to call his lawyer when the police asked for his keys (Brown had locked his car door upon exiting the vehicle, after he was unable to produce a driver’s license or registration), not in response to interrogation.

AFFIRMED.

*

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

1

. *Illinois v. Caballes,*543 U.S. 405, 408, 125 S.Ct. 834, 160 L.Ed.2d 842 (2005).

2

. *Id.*at 407, 125 S.Ct. 834.

3

. *See, e.g., Miranda v. Arizona,*384 U.S. 436, 468-70, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).

4

. *United States v. Padilla,*387 F.3d 1087, 1093 (9th Cir.2004).

5

. *Id.*(quoting *Rhode Island v. Innis,*446 U.S. 291, 300-01, 100 S.Ct. 1682, 64 L.Ed.2d 297 (1980)). *Cf. United States v. LaGrone,*43 F.3d 332, 335 (7th Cir.1994) (“[B]ecause requesting consent to search is not likely to elicit an incriminating statement, such questioning is not interrogation....”).
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N
NO. 03-11-00871- CV
Shal anda D. Moore, J.D.; and Jos eph R. Willi e, II, D.D.S., J.D., Appellants
v. Riecke Baum ann, Receiver and Master in Chancery, Appellee
F ROM TH E CO UNTY COURT AT LAW NO . 1 O F TRAVIS CO UNTY NO. C-1 -CV- 11- 0122 39, H ONO RAB LE J. DAVID P HI LLIP S, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellants have filed an unopposed motion to abate this a ppeal pending settlement neg otiations. The motion is g rante d and the a ppeal is abated until Febr uary 18, 2013. The parties shall submit either a mot ion to reinstate or a joint status report conc erning the status of settlement neg otiations no later than F ebrua ry 18, 2013.

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ J . Woodfin J ones, Chief Just ice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Rose and Goodw in Abated Filed: De cembe r 19, 2012
#### Thompson *v.*Webb.

Argued May 30,

Decided July 22, 1901.

Certiorari. Before Judge Lumpkin. Pulton superior court. November 13, 1901.

*Westmoreland Brothers,*for plaintiff in error.

*Thomas L. Bishop,*contra.

Kish, J.

There was no error in admitting testimony; and there was sufficient evidence to warrant the jury in finding that the defendant admitted liability for the plaintiff’s demand and promised to pay the same. This being so, and the verdict returned against him in the justice’s court having, on certiorari, been approved by the judge of the superior court, the Supreme Court will allow it to stand. *Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concurring.*
CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

*December 4, 2009*

[Cite as *12/04/09 Case Announcements,*2009-Ohio-6320.]

*1513DISCIPLINARY CASES

2008-0723.

#### Akron Bar Assn. v. Wittbrod.

This matter came on for further consideration upon the filing of a motion for an order to appear and show cause filed by movant, Akron Bar Association, on October 13, 2009, requesting the court to issue an order directing respondent to appear and show cause why he should not be found in contempt for his failure to abide by the court’s July 28, 2009 order. Respondent did not file a response. Accordingly,

It is ordered by the court, sua sponte, that respondent appear in person before this court on January 12, 2010, at 9:00 a.m.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          52,049
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,580
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (318)
<INVENTORY>                                      7,921
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                62,727
<PP&E>                                           3,753
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (1,014)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  65,610
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,123
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            19
<OTHER-SE>                                      58,468
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    65,610
<SALES>                                         40,169
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                40,169
<CGS>                                           36,678
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   45,087
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (4,191)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (4,191)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.22)
        

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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM JWH GLOBAL
TRUST FOR THE FIRST QUARTER OF 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001027099
<NAME> JWH GLOBAL TRUST

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                      70,106,310
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  621,884
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            70,728,195
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              70,728,195
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,846,383
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  63,881,812
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                70,728,195
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           (5,283,831)
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,159,870
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (7,443,701)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (7,443,701)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (7,443,701)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (9.64)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (9.64)


</TABLE>
{"agency":"FDIC","generated":"2021-07-28 04:04:33","items":[{"id":"1","parent":null,"text":"Reporting Quarter","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-year","label":"Reporting Year","options":[{"label":"2011","value":"2011"},{"label":"2012","value":"2012"},{"label":"2013","value":"2013"},{"label":"2014","value":"2014"},{"label":"2015","value":"2015"},{"label":"2016","value":"2016"},{"label":"2017","value":"2017"},{"label":"2018","value":"2018"},{"label":"2019","value":"2019"},{"label":"2020","value":"2020"}],"value":"2021"},{"type":"select","name":"2-1-quarter","label":"Reporting Quarter","options":[{"label":"Q1","value":"Q1"},{"label":"Q2","value":"Q2"},{"label":"Q3","value":"Q3"},{"label":"Q4","value":"Q4"}],"value":"Q3"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-1","parent":"1","text":"Ten Oldest Requests","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-1-oldest","label":"Ten Oldest","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":"10"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-3","parent":"1","text":"","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-3-closed","label":"Ten Oldest Closed","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":"5"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-2","parent":"1","text":"FOIA Requests Information","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/08\/21","fields":[{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-component","label":"Component","options":[],"value":["FDIC"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-received","label":"Received","options":[],"value":["66"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-processed","label":"Processed","options":[],"value":["60"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-backlog","label":"Backlog","options":[],"value":["15"]}],"multiple":true}],"year":"2021","quarter":"Q3"}