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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF AND FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE
30, 1997.  AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001019947
<NAME> COMPURAD, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       1,702,469
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,875,566
<ALLOWANCES>                                   140,000
<INVENTORY>                                    659,720
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,294,278
<PP&E>                                         878,522
<DEPRECIATION>                                 223,825
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,948,975
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,564,528
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     6,551,972
<OTHER-SE>                                     473,500
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,948,975
<SALES>                                      4,682,420
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,682,420
<CGS>                                        2,458,621
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,458,621
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,073,188
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (786,886)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (786,886)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (786,886)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.20)
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Kenneth Spulka, Petitioner, v Donald Selsky, as Director of Special Housing Unit for the Department of Correctional Services, et al., Respondents.

[715 NYS2d 521]

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Washington County) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule prohibiting inmates from possessing controlled substances after a frisk of petitioner revealed a packet of heroin. The determination of guilt was affirmed upon administrative appeal and this CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued. Initially, upon reviewing the record, we find that the misbehavior report, the testimony of the correction officer who prepared the report, the positive test results and the testimony of the correction officer who performed the testing constitute substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt *(see, Matter of Maldonado v Goord,*270 *553AD2d 742). Contrary to petitioner’s assertions, the evidence sufficiently demonstrated that the testing of the substance was performed in accordance with applicable procedures *(see, Matter of Moley v Selsky,*245 AD2d 588, 589).

Petitioner’s claim that the misbehavior report is defective because it does not contain the signatures of a correction officer who witnessed the frisk or the correction officer who tested the substance is unavailing. We note that both officers testified at the hearing and petitioner failed to demonstrate that he suffered any prejudice as the result of this technical error *(see, id.,*at 589; *Matter of Serra v Selsky,*223 AD2d 845). In addition, contrary to petitioner’s contention, he was not improperly denied the right to call witnesses to identify the individual who provided the information which prompted the frisk since such evidence was not considered in determining petitioner’s guilt *(see, Matter of Davis v Selsky,*270 AD2d 548; *Matter of Moore v Rabideau,*250 AD2d 1008, 1009). We have considered petitioner’s remaining contentions, to the extent they have been preserved for our review, and find them to be without merit.

Cardona, P. J., Her cure, Crew III, Peters and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
#### § 1203.735-306 Miscellaneous statutory provisions.

Each special Government employee shall become acquainted with each statute that relates to the employee's ethical and other conduct as a special Government employee of an agency and of the Government. The attention of special Government employees is directed to the statutes listed in § 1203.735-216.
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 171 (Tuesday, September 4, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 53959]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-21707]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 8009]

Culturally Significant Object Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Dancing Into Dreams, Maya Vases From the IK'Kingdom''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 
of August 28, 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority No. 
257 of April 15, 2003), I hereby determine that the object to be 
included in the exhibition ``Dancing Into Dreams, Maya Vases from the 
IK'Kingdom,'' imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the 
United States, is of cultural significance. The object is imported 
pursuant to a loan agreement with the foreign owner or custodian. I 
also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit object at 
the Princeton University Art Museum, Princeton, NJ, from on or about 
October 6, 2012, until on or about February 17, 2013, and at possible 
additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the 
national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these 
Determinations be published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit object, contact Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
632-6467). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, 
Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: August 28, 2012.
J. Adam Ereli,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and 
Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2012-21707 Filed 8-31-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
#### Gabriela Leal, an Infant, by Her Father and Natural Guardian, Francisco Leal, et al., Appellants, v Lawrence Levy, Respondent, et al., Defendant.

[823 NYS2d 121]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Nelson Roman, J.), entered September 27, 2005, which, after a jury verdict awarding plaintiff Gabriela Leal $400,000 for past pain and suffering and $650,000 for future pain and suffering over 20 years, granted defendant’s motion for a new trial on damages unless plaintiffs stipulated to decrease the awards for past pain and suffering to $75,000 and future pain and suffering to $80,000, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In October 2000, 13-year-old plaintiff Gabriela Leal sustained injuries while seated in the rear passenger seat of a car owned and operated by her mother, defendant Deleal, which was sideswiped by a vehicle owned and operated by defendant Levy. Although the infant plaintiff experienced pain in her neck, back and right shoulder, she did not seek treatment until the day after the accident, when she went to a physical therapy center. About two weeks later, plaintiff consulted an orthopedist, who *798advised her to continue with physical therapy and ordered MRI studies, which revealed derangements of the cervical and lumbar spine, a tear of the glenoid labrum, and a disc bulge at L5-S1.

The infant plaintiff was last seen by her orthopedist for treatment about four years before trial. Her last physical therapy session was about 31⁄2 years before trial. She was never prescribed pain medication, and no surgery was recommended.

Notwithstanding the permanent nature of the injuries, the trial court’s reduction of the jury’s awards as deviating materially from reasonable compensation was warranted under the circumstances of this case (CPLR 5501 [c]; *Elias v Linder, 4*AD3d 136 [2004]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan, Nardelli and McGuire, JJ.
#### Samuel Cohen and Others, Copartners, etc., Appellants, v. American Woolen Company of New York, Respondent.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present —■ Clarke, P. J., Laughlin, Dowling, Page and Merrell, JJ.
### §§2689i to 2689l. Repealed. Pub. L. 97–35, title IX, §902(e)(2)(B), Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 560

Section 2689i, Pub. L. 88–164, title II, §221, as added Pub. L. 94–63, title III, §303, July 29, 1975, 89 Stat. 322; amended Pub. L. 94–273, §44, Apr. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 381, set forth provisions respecting Federal share, etc., for facilities assistance.

A prior section 221 of Pub. L. 88–164, title II, was classified to section 2688a of this title.

Section 2689j, Pub. L. 88–164, title II, §222, as added Pub. L. 94–63, title III, §303, July 29, 1975, 89 Stat. 323, related to approval of projects, and procedures applicable.

A prior section 222 of Pub. L. 88–164, title II, was classified to section 2688b of this title.

Section 2689k, Pub. L. 88–164, title II, §223, as added Pub. L. 94–63, title III, §303, July 29, 1975, 89 Stat. 325, related to payments for projects.

A prior section 223 of Pub. L. 88–164, title II, was classified to section 2688c of this title.

Section 2689l, Pub. L. 88–164, title II, §224, as added Pub. L. 94–63, title III, §303, July 29, 1975, 89 Stat. 326, related to judicial review of projects.

A prior section 224 of Pub. L. 88–164, title II, was classified to section 2688d of this title.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective Oct. 1, 1981, see section 902(h) of Pub. L. 97–35, set out as an Effective Date of 1981 Amendment note under section 238l of this title.
#### § 7.1 Scope of rules.

This part sets forth registered entity rules altered or supplemented by the Commission pursuant to section 8a(7) of the Act.
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">The People of the State of New York, Respondent, <br><br>against<br><br>Adam Widgins, Defendant-Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>In consolidated appeals, defendant appeals from (1) a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Diana M. Boyar, J.), rendered January 15, 2014, convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of forcible touching and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and imposing sentence, and (2) a judgment (same court and Judge), rendered January 16, 2014, convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of forcible touching, and imposing sentence.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Judgments of conviction (Diana M. Boyar, J.), rendered January 15, 2014 and January 16, 2014, affirmed.</p><p>Since defendant did not move to withdraw his guilty plea or vacate the judgments, and since this case does not come within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement (<i>see People v Peque</i>, 22 NY3d 168, 182 [2013], <i>cert denied sub nom. Thomas v New York</i>, 135 S.Ct. 90 [2014]; <i>People v Toxey, </i>86 NY2d 725 [1995]), his challenge to the validity of the plea is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice (<a href="../2014/2014_08365.htm" target="_blank"><i>see People v Siders</i>, 123 AD3d 408</a> [2014], <i>lv denied</i> 26 NY3d 935 [2015]). As an alternative holding, we reject it on the merits. At the plea proceeding, defendant pleaded guilty with full knowledge that he would be sentenced to two concurrent eight-month jail terms, as opposed to receiving potential consecutive one-year sentences if convicted after trial (<i>see People v Murray</i>, 15 NY3d 725, 726-727 [2010]; <a href="../2013/2013_03768.htm" target="_blank"><i>People v Alicea</i>, 106 AD3d 619</a>, 620 [2013], <i>lv denied </i>21 NY3d 1040 [2013]), and defendant had all the information he needed to "knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently choose among alternative courses of action" (<i>People v Catu</i>, 4 NY3d 242, 245 [2005]). </p><p>Defendant's claim of coercion was vague and unsubstantiated, and contradicted by his detailed plea allocution (<a href="../2010/2010_08366.htm" target="_blank"><i>see People v Nunez</i>, 78 AD3d 503</a>, 503-504 [2010], <i>lv denied</i> 16 NY3d 799 [2011]).</p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur <br>Decision Date: March 24, 2016<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
#### § 147.8 Final agency action.

Either a decision by the Secretary on the merits of a complaint, or no notification in writing from the Secretary within 180 days of filing the complaint, will a constitute a final agency action and exhaustion of the complainant's administrative remedies for purposes of 5 U.S.C. 701, *et seq.*
#### § 1413.1 Purpose and scope.

This part contains the regulations of the Foreign Service Labor Relations Board implementing the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b.
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

          - [Docket No. PL05-5-000] 

On December 8, 2004, the Association of Oil Pipe Lines (AOPL), Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA), and Edison Electric Institute (EEI) (together, Movants) filed a motion for an extension of time to file comments in response to the Commission's Request For Comments issued December 2, 2004, in the above-docketed proceeding. Movants state that an extension is necessary because the current deadline for filing comments, December 22, 2004, falls during the holiday season and it is difficult to assemble the resources required to respond to the significant and complex policy issues addressed in the Request For Comments. The Movants further state that interested parties outside the regulated industries who may not yet be aware of the Commission's inquiry would also benefit from additional time to comment. 

Upon consideration, notice is hereby given that an extension of time to file comments on the December 2 Request For Comments is granted to and including January 21, 2005, as requested by Movants. 

Magalie R. Salas,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 04-27376 Filed 12-10-04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
Editorial Note on Part 240
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 240 appear at 57 FR 36501, Aug. 13, 1992, and 57 FR 47409, Oct. 16, 1992.

§ 240.3b-18 Definitions of terms used in Section 3(a)(5) of the Act. For the purposes of section 3(a)(5)(C) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(5)(C): ( a ) The term *affiliate* means any company that controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with another company.
( b ) The term *consumer-related receivable* means any obligation incurred by any natural person to pay money arising out of a transaction in which the money, property, insurance, or services (being purchased) are primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.
( c ) The term *member* as it relates to the term “syndicate of banks” means a bank that is a participant in a syndicate of banks and together with its affiliates, other than its broker or dealer affiliates, originates no less than 10% of the value of the obligations in a pool of obligations used to back the securities issued through a grantor trust or other separate entity.
( d ) The term *obligation* means any note, draft, acceptance, loan, lease, receivable, or other evidence of indebtedness that is not a security issued by a person other than the bank.
( e ) The term *originated* means: ( 1 ) Funding an obligation at the time that the obligation is created; or
( 2 ) Initially approving and underwriting the obligation, or initially agreeing to purchase the obligation, provided that: ( i ) The obligation conforms to the underwriting standards or is evidenced by the loan documents of the bank or its affiliates, other than its broker or dealer affiliates; and
( ii ) The bank or its affiliates, other than its broker or dealer affiliates, fund the obligation in a timely manner, not to exceed six months after the obligation is created.
( f ) The term *pool* means more than one obligation or type of obligation grouped together to provide collateral for a securities offering.
( g ) The term *predominantly originated* means that no less than 85% of the value of the obligations in any pool were originated by: ( 1 ) The bank or its affiliates, other than its broker or dealer affiliates; or
( 2 ) Banks that are members of a syndicate of banks and affiliates of such banks, other than their broker or dealer affiliates, if the obligations or pool of obligations consist of mortgage obligations or consumer-related receivables.
( 3 ) For this purpose, the bank and its affiliates include any financial institution with which the bank or its affiliates have merged but does not include the purchase of a pool of obligations or the purchase of a line of business.
( h ) The term *syndicate of banks* means a group of banks that acts jointly, on a temporary basis, to issue through a grantor trust or other separate entity, securities backed by obligations originated by each of the individual banks or their affiliates, other than their broker or dealer affiliates.
[68 FR 8700, Feb. 24, 2003]
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 235 (Wednesday, December 8, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 71062]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-26898]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the meeting of 
the President's Cancer Panel.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(9)(B), Title 5 U.S.C., as 
amended, because the premature disclosure of information and the 
discussions would likely to significantly frustrate implementation of 
recommendations.

    Name of Committee: President's Cancer Panel.
    Date: December 14, 2004.
    Time: 3 p.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: The Panel will discuss the future focuses of the Panel 
with direction bearing on prepublication manuscripts on Translating 
Research into Clinical Practice. These manuscripts have been 
provided by their authors with the understanding that the Panel will 
not break prepublication embargo conditions.
    Place: National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, 
31 Center Drive, Building 31, Room 3A18, Bethesda, MD 20892 
(Teleconference).
    Contact Person: Maureen O. Wilson, PhD, Executive Secretary, 
National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, 31 Center 
Drive, Building 31, Room 3A18, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 496-1148.
    This meeting is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to scheduling conflicts.
    Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home 
page: deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory/pcp/pcp.htm, where an agenda and 
any additional information for the meeting will be posted when 
available.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, 
Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 
93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer 
Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer 
Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer 
Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: November 30, 2004.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 04-26898 Filed 12-7-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Victor Rivera, Appellant.

[820 NYS2d 306]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrero, J.), rendered October 2, 2003, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (five counts), attempted robbery in the first degree, and menacing in the second degree (six counts), upon a plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the facts and as a matter of discretion, and that the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court for further proceedings in accordance herewith.

The defendant received an enhanced sentence after it was found that he failed to satisfy a condition of his plea bargain that required him to successfully complete a drug treatment program. The defendant allegedly was discharged from the program after he relapsed. However, the defendant disputed the relapse at the sentencing, and the Supreme Court failed to conduct an inquiry sufficient to assure that there was a legitimate basis for the defendant’s discharge from the program and that the information upon which the court based the enhanced sentence was reliable and accurate *(see People v Outley,*80 NY2d 702, 713 [1993]; *People v Gonzalez, 2*AD3d 536 [2003]; *People v Rodriguez,*289 AD2d 512, 514 [2001]). Thus, the matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a new inquiry and determination regarding the defendant’s discharge from the program and for resentencing thereafter.

The People correctly assert that the defendant’s claim that his expulsion from the drug treatment program was the result of a “false positive,” and his further claim that this “false positive” was, in turn, the result of the prior administration to him of the drug lidocaine during the course of a prior dental procedure, are improperly being raised for the first time on appeal *447and concern matters that are dehors the record. However, because a further inquiry is needed for the reasons noted above, the defendant’s claim in this regard may also be addressed.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J.P., Krausman, Lifson and Lunn, JJ., concur.