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

<ARTICLE> 7
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
unaudited financial statements contained in Form 10-Q of which this schedule
forms a part and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
See accompanying notes.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                         1,080,157
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                      10,710
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                               1,201,381
<CASH>                                           2,346
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                             352,107
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                           5,270
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,787,505
<POLICY-LOSSES>                              1,009,988
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                            103,249
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     338,336
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,787,505
<PREMIUMS>                                     150,285
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                             55,214
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                             (5,100)
<OTHER-INCOME>                                   3,111
<BENEFITS>                                     140,537
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                          0
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                            31,616
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 17,777
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,835
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             13,942
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    13,942
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.08
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                 625,864
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                            139,265
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                1,272
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                               1,969
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                               106,551
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                657,881
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0


</TABLE>
### §8222. Regulation of reinsurer solvency

#### (a) Domiciliary State regulation

If the State of domicile of a reinsurer is an NAIC-accredited State or has financial solvency requirements substantially similar to the requirements necessary for NAIC accreditation, such State shall be solely responsible for regulating the financial solvency of the reinsurer.

#### (b) Nondomiciliary States

#### (1) Limitation on financial information requirements

If the State of domicile of a reinsurer is an NAIC-accredited State or has financial solvency requirements substantially similar to the requirements necessary for NAIC accreditation, no other State may require the reinsurer to provide any additional financial information other than the information the reinsurer is required to file with its domiciliary State.

#### (2) Receipt of information

No provision of this section shall be construed as preventing or prohibiting a State that is not the State of domicile of a reinsurer from receiving a copy of any financial statement filed with its domiciliary State.

(Pub. L. 111–203, title V, §532, July 21, 2010, 124 Stat. 1595.)
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                          0000914142
<NAME>                         Gilman + Ciocia, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                   1
<CURRENCY>                     U.S. Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   Year
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Jun-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                  Jul-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    Jun-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                 1
<CASH>                          4,561,293
<SECURITIES>                    73,044
<RECEIVABLES>                   6,542,615
<ALLOWANCES>                    187,500
<INVENTORY>                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                000,016,734,425
<PP&E>                          7,821,382
<DEPRECIATION>                  3,397,927
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  43,905,178
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           18,345,861
<BONDS>                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     0
<COMMON>                        80,308
<OTHER-SE>                      24,632,533
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    43,905,178
<SALES>                         89,578,494
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                89,578,494
<CGS>                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   96,366,820
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                (1,558,369)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              930,135
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 (6,160,092)
<INCOME-TAX>                    (2,147,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             (4,013,092)
<DISCONTINUED>                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0
<CHANGES>                       0
<NET-INCOME>                    (4,013,092)
<EPS-BASIC>                     (0.53)
<EPS-DILUTED>                   (0.53)


</TABLE>
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,

Appellant,

v.

DAGMARA DARIAS and 

REINALDO RODRIGUEZ,

Appellees.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-713

_____________________________/

Opinion filed January 6, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Department of Revenue.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Toni C. Bernstein, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

No Appearance for Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The Florida Department of Revenue raises two issues in this appeal of a 

Final Administrative Paternity and Support Order determining the child support 

obligation of Appellee Reinaldo Rodriguez (the father). In the first issue, the 

Department argues that the administrative law judge (ALJ) erred by concluding 

that he lacked authority to enter a support order exceeding the amounts set forth in 

the Department’s Proposed Final Administrative Paternity and Support Order 
2

based on new information developed at an evidentiary hearing that would increase 

the father’s child support obligation under the statutory child support guidelines. In 

the second issue, the Department argues that the Final Administrative Paternity and 

Support Order is not supported by competent, substantial evidence. Consistent with 

our opinion in Department of Revenue v. Reyes, No. 1D15-707 (Fla. 1st DCA 

December 31, 2015), we resolve both issues by concluding that the ALJ was 

required to establish the father’s child support obligation based on the evidence 

presented at the hearing. By limiting the father’s child support obligation to the 

amounts contained in the proposed order, notwithstanding the evidence presented, 

the Final Administrative Paternity and Support Order is contrary to Florida law and 

not supported by competent, substantial evidence. Accordingly, we vacate the 

order and remand for further proceedings. 

WETHERELL, ROWE, and RAY, JJ., CONCUR.
### §6307a. Contract requirements

Within 2 years after May 26, 2000, the Association of Boxing Commissions (ABC) shall develop and shall approve by a vote of no less than a majority of its member State boxing commissioners, guidelines for minimum contractual provisions that should be included in bout agreements and boxing contracts. It is the sense of the Congress that State boxing commissions should follow these ABC guidelines.

(Pub. L. 104–272, §9, as added Pub. L. 106–210, §4(2), May 26, 2000, 114 Stat. 322.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 9 of Pub. L. 104–272 was renumbered section 17 and is classified to section 6308 of this title.
### §636i. Small business bonding threshold

#### (a) In general

Except as provided in subsection (b), and notwithstanding any other provision of law, for any procurement related to a major disaster, the Administrator may, upon such terms and conditions as the Administrator may prescribe, guarantee and enter into commitments to guarantee any surety against loss resulting from a breach of the terms of a bid bond, payment bond, performance bond, or bonds ancillary thereto, by a principal on any total work order or contract amount at the time of bond execution that does not exceed $5,000,000.

#### (b) Increase of amount

Upon request of the head of any Federal agency other than the Administration involved in reconstruction efforts in response to a major disaster, the Administrator may guarantee and enter into a commitment to guarantee any security against loss under subsection (a) on any total work order or contract amount at the time of bond execution that does not exceed $10,000,000.

#### (c) Limitation on use of other funds

The Administrator may carry out this section only with amounts appropriated in advance specifically to carry out this section.

(Pub. L. 110–234, title XII, §12079, May 22, 2008, 122 Stat. 1416; Pub. L. 110–246, §4(a), title XII, §12079, June 18, 2008, 122 Stat. 1664, 2178.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Pub. L. 110–234 and Pub. L. 110–246 enacted identical sections. Pub. L. 110–234 was repealed by section 4(a) of Pub. L. 110–246.

Section was enacted as part of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, and also as part of the Small Business Disaster Response and Loan Improvements Act of 2008, and not as part of the Small Business Act which comprises this chapter.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Enactment of this section and repeal of Pub. L. 110–234 by Pub. L. 110–246 effective May 22, 2008, the date of enactment of Pub. L. 110–234, see section 4 of Pub. L. 110–246, set out as a note under section 8701 of Title 7, Agriculture.
###### Editorial Note on Part 28

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 28 appear at 76 FR 76873, Dec. 9, 2011.

#### § 28.110 Purpose.

The procedures in this subpart relate to the Board's duty under 31 U.S.C. 753(a) (4) and (5) to determine appropriate units of GAO employees for collective bargaining, to conduct elections in order to determine whether the employees in any such units wish to select a labor organization to represent them in collective bargaining, and, thereafter, to certify labor organizations so selected as the designated exclusive bargaining representative. They are referred to in these regulations as “representation proceedings”.
EXHIBIT 32.2

    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Gouverneur Bancorp Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert
J. Twyman, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes -Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

         1.       The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         2.       The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company as of and for the period covered by
                  the Report.


May 11, 2007                           By: /s/ ROBERT J. TWYMAN
                                           ------------------------------------
                                           Robert J. Twyman
                                           Vice President and
                                           Chief Financial Officer



         The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to
Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States
Code in accordance with Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall
not be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section, and shall not be
deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act
of 1933 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.


                                       31
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

,

Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 8, 2019

b1105 

# Order

Clerk November 8, 2019

160222

In re McGEE/SPENCER, Minors. SC: 160222

COA: 347442

Wayne CC Family Div:

11

- 501043

- NA

________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 13, 2019

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
## Redirecting you to a lite version of archive.org...
# C_2010317EN.01003802.xml

| 20.11.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 317/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.11.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 317/38

---

Action brought on 16 September 2010 — Trenzas y Cables de Acero v European Commission

(Case T-428/10)

()

2010/C 317/70

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Trenzas y Cables de Acero (Santander, Spain) (represented by E. González Díaz and A. Tresandí Blanco, lawyers))

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annulment pursuant to Article 263 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union of the decision of the European Commission of 30 June 2010 C(2010) 4387 final on a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU in Case COMP/38.344 — Prestressing steel; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annulment pursuant to Article 263 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union of the decision of the European Commission of 30 June 2010 C(2010) 4387 final on a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU in Case COMP/38.344 — Prestressing steel;

| — | or, in the alternative, annulment or reduction pursuant to Article 261 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union of the amount of the fine imposed by that decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

or, in the alternative, annulment or reduction pursuant to Article 261 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union of the amount of the fine imposed by that decision;

| — | an order that the Commission should pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

an order that the Commission should pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The decision challenged in these proceedings is the same as that in Case T-426/10 Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías v Commission.

Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías

Commission

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those raised in that case.

The applicant claims that the Commission made an error of fact and of law by applying Article 101 TFEU Article 101 TFEU so far as concerns the attribution of liability to TYCSA PSC by reason of the alleged infringement of that article in that the Commission attributes liability for the conduct described in the Decision to TYCSA PSC as an alleged member of an economic entity made up of various legal entities (GSW, TQ, MRT and TYCSA PSA itself) from 30 November 1992 to 19 September 2002.

---
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.40

This Note has not been registered under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended
(the "Act'), and is not a "restricted security," as that term is defined in Rule
144 under the Act.  This Note may not be offered for sale, sold, or otherwise
transferred except pursuant to an effective Registration Statement under the
Act, or pursuant to an exemption from registration under the Act, the
availability of which is to be established to the satisfaction of the Borrower.

                         SUBORDINATED PROMISSORY NOTE

$2,500,000                                          Date: November 17, 1999
                                                    Due:  November 17, 2002

FOR VALUE RECEIVED, Nutrition For Life International, Inc., a Texas corporation
("NFLI") hereby promises to pay to the order of Pailla Reddy ("Reddy") at 51
Brooklyn, Westbury, New York  11590 or such other place of payment as Reddy may
specify from time to time in writing, in lawful money of the United States of
America, the principal amount of Two Million, Five Hundred Thousand and 00/100
Dollars ($2,500,000) together with interest at seven percent (7%) per annum from
the date of this Subordinated Promissory Note (the "Note") to maturity of each
installment on the principal hereof remaining from time to time unpaid, such
principal and interest to be paid in three installments, as follows:

(i) Principal of $1,000,000, plus interest, one year from the date of this Note,
(ii) principal of $1,000,000, plus interest, two years from the date of this
Note, and (iii) principal of $500,000, plus interest, three years from the date
of this Note.

Payments shall be applied first to accrued interest and then to unpaid
principal.  Interest shall be computed on the basis of a year consisting of
twelve months of thirty days each.  Prepayment may be made without penalty or
premium.

THIS NOTE IS EXPRESSLY SUBJECT TO THE TERMS OF THAT CERTAIN CREDITOR AND
SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT BY AND AMONG NFLI, REDDY AND  WITH GENERAL ELECTRIC
CAPITAL CORPORATION (THE "SENIOR LENDER") FOR THE BENEFIT OF SENIORLENDER.  IN
THE EVENT OF ANY CONTRADICTION OR INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN THIS NOTE AND THE
CREDITOR AND SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT, THE TERMS OF THE CREDITOR AND
SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT SHALL CONTROL.

NFLI waives presentment and demand for payment, notice of dishonor, protest and
notice and protest and any other notice as permitted under the UCC or any
applicable law.

                         NUTRITION FOR LIFE INTERNATIONAL, INC.

                         9101 Jameel
                         Houston, Texas 77040

                         Signature:  ________________________________________
                         Print Name: ________________________________________
                         Title:      ________________________________________
# C_2010234EN.01003902.xml

| 28.8.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 234/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 234/39

---

Action brought on 5 May 2010 — Condé v Council

(Case T-210/10)

()

2010/C 234/72

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Mamoudou Condé (represented by: J.-C. Tchikaya, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Council Regulation (EU) No 1284/2009 of 22 December 2009 imposing certain specific restrictive measures in respect of the Republic of Guinea, in so far as it concerns the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Council Regulation (EU) No 1284/2009 of 22 December 2009 imposing certain specific restrictive measures in respect of the Republic of Guinea, in so far as it concerns the applicant;

| — | Order the Council to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks annulment of Council Regulation (EU) No 1284/2009 of 22 December 2009 imposing certain specific restrictive measures in respect of the Republic of Guinea (1) in so far as the applicant is included on the list of natural or legal persons, entities or bodies whose funds and economic resources are frozen under Article 6 of that regulation.

1

In support of his action, the applicant raises three pleas in law alleging:

| — | an infringement of the right to an effective judicial remedy since he was not informed of the rights of appeal available to him; |
| --- | --- |

—

an infringement of the right to an effective judicial remedy since he was not informed of the rights of appeal available to him;

| — | an infringement of his rights of defence since he was not informed of the evidence against him; |
| --- | --- |

—

an infringement of his rights of defence since he was not informed of the evidence against him;

| — | an infringement of the principle of proportionality and of his right to property. |
| --- | --- |

—

an infringement of the principle of proportionality and of his right to property.

---

(1)  OJ 2009 L 346, p. 26.

1

---