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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1998
<CASH>                                       2,015,437
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,287,205
<ALLOWANCES>                                   167,000
<INVENTORY>                                  2,507,130
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,289,943
<PP&E>                                       1,750,381
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,676,349
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,482,389
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,238,730
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,399
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,482,389
<SALES>                                      6,148,447
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,172,733
<CGS>                                        4,253,902
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,253,902
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,468,840
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             145,164
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                303,734
<INCOME-TAX>                                   124,421
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            179,313
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   179,313
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .053
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .053
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Vincent Shomo, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered April 4, 1975, convicting him of forgery in the second degree (two counts), criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree (two counts), theft of services and attempted petit larceny, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment modified, on the law, by reversing the convictions of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree (two counts), theft of services and attempted petit larceny, and the sentences imposed thereon, and the said counts are dismissed. As so modified, judgment affirmed. The People and appellant agree, and this court concurs, that the conviction of the two counts of criminal possession of a forged instrument must be reversed because appellant was also convicted of forgery counts pertaining to the same instruments (see Penal Law, § 170.35). We are also of the opinion that, on the facts adduced, the count charging theft of services (the fifth count), committed by appellant’s making and issuing a check from his brother-in-law’s checking account to pay for two air transportation tickets, was a lesser inclusory count of the first count of forgery in the second degree, charging him, *inter alia,*with falsely making that check. Similarly, the count charging attempted petit larceny (the sixth count), committed by appellant’s submission of a lost ticket refund application for $165.10 in the name of his brother-in-law, was a lesser inclusory count of the second count of forgery in the second degree, charging him, *inter alia,*with falsely making the lost ticket application for the refund in question. Since defendant could not have committed the first and second counts, charging forgery in the second degree, without concomitantly having committed, respectively, theft of services and attempted petit larceny, it was improper to convict him of all four offenses. Accordingly, the convictions for *1019theft of services and attempted petit larceny must be reversed and the said counts dismissed (see *People v Hayes,*43 AD2d 99, affd 35 NY2d 907). Damiani, J. P., Titone, Suozzi and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
#### GELENTER, Appellant, v. MILES, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

January 27, 1905.)

Action by Joseph Gelenter against William O. Miles. No opinion. Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs.
Case3:09-cv-01550-JSW Document183 Filed05/14/10 Page1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Joseph C. Spero

Case 3:09-cv-01550-JSW Document 184 Filed 05/19/10 Page 1 of 1
**REGULATORY EVALUATION**

**Directorate Identifier: 2011** 

**- NM** 
**- 106** 

**- AD** 

**Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. I s it appropriate t o include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES ( ) explain NO (X)
### §1600l. Authorization of appropriations

There is authorized to be appropriated to the Department of the Interior $600,000, through the end of fiscal year 1990, in addition to any other funds now available to the Department to discharge its duties to implement sections 1600b to 1600k of this title and section 4029 of title 42: Provided, That by mutual agreement, such funds shall be made available to the Federal Emergency Management Agency to discharge its duties under section 4029 of title 42: Provided further, That the provisions of sections 1600d and 1600e of this title shall not be affected by this section: And Provided further, in addition, Indian tribes may be eligible under Public Law 93–638 [25 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.] to contract for studies of Indian lands required under the provisions of this chapter.

(Pub. L. 99–450, §15, Oct. 8, 1986, 100 Stat. 1136.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Public Law 93–638, referred to in text, is Pub. L. 93–638, Jan. 4, 1975, 88 Stat. 2203, known as the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, which is classified principally to chapter 46 (§5301 et seq.) of Title 25, Indians. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 5301 of Title 25 and Tables.

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

#### Transfer of Functions

For transfer of all functions, personnel, assets, components, authorities, grant programs, and liabilities of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, including the functions of the Under Secretary for Federal Emergency Management relating thereto, to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, see section 315(a)(1) of Title 6, Domestic Security.

For transfer of functions, personnel, assets, and liabilities of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, including the functions of the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency relating thereto, to the Secretary of Homeland Security, and for treatment of related references, see former section 313(1) and sections 551(d), 552(d), and 557 of Title 6, Domestic Security, and the Department of Homeland Security Reorganization Plan of November 25, 2002, as modified, set out as a note under section 542 of Title 6.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

JOHN A. W. HALLEY

Attorney at Law, SBN 111682

620 Jefferson Avenue

Redwood City, CA 94063

Tel: (650) 366-6789

Fax: (650) 365-5386

Attorney for Petitioner

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

CORY MOSBY, Case No. 3:09-cv-01667-MMC

Petitioner

ORDER

v.

JAMES YATES, Warden,

Respondent

_________________________________/

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, it is hereby ordered that Petitioner may have until

June 27, 2010 to file his traverse to the answer of respondent.

Dated: __________ _______________________________

MAXINE CHESNEY

JUDGE, U.S. DISTRICT COURT

June 4, 2010

Case 3:09-cv-01667-MMC Document 23 Filed 06/04/10 Page 1 of 1
§ 180.430 Motions. ( a ) *Motions.* Any application for an order or other request shall be made by a motion which, unless made during an appearance before the ALJ, shall be in writing and shall state the specific relief requested and the basis therefor. Motions made during an appearance before the ALJ shall be stated orally and made a part of the transcript. All parties shall be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to written or oral motions or requests.
( b ) *Responses to written motions.* Within seven calendar days after a written motion is served, any party to the proceeding may file a response in support of, or in opposition to, the motion. Unless otherwise ordered by the ALJ, no further responsive documents may be filed. Failure to file a response within the response period constitutes a waiver of any objection to the granting of the motion.
( c ) *Oral argument.* The ALJ may order oral argument on any motion.
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE: 

CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION

SECURITIES LITIGATION.

This Document Relates

To All Cases. /

No. C 08-01510 WHA

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO EXCLUDE PART

OF PROFESSOR JAMES’

TESTIMONY

With respect to the motion to exclude the “negative causation” analysis of Professor

Christopher M. James, the motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to re-filing it for the final

pretrial conference. The Court will not allow any expert opinion that is based on a loss-causation

theory contrary to the order filed today on that issue. Please read the order and re-do the motion

in conformity therewith. Please do not waste time over mere arguments over the meaning of the

overall evidence where the jury could go either way. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 8, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-01936-WHA Document 58 Filed 04/08/10 Page 1 of 1
#### C. A. Morgan et al., as Administrators of the Estate of Joseph H. Morgan, Deceased, Plaintiffs, v. George M. Brewster & Son, Inc., Defendant. George M. Brewster & Son, Inc., Appellant, v. Prossner & Sons, Inc., Respondent.

Time for argument of appeal extended to include February 1961 Term on condition that demand pursuant to rule YII of the Appellate Division Fourth Department Rules is filed on or before January 23, 1961.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

JUAN MERCED KETCHUM

,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 22

- 00114

- CR

Appeal from the

441st Judicial District Court

of Midland County, Texas

(TC# CR56387 )

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes the judgment of

conviction should be reformed to reflect the deletion of the imposition of $6,940.00 in attorney’s

fees. We therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court as reformed

. This decision shall be

certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022.

JEFF ALLEY

, Justice

Before Rodriguez , C.J., Palafox, and Alley, JJ.
### §7254. Rules and regulations

The Secretary is authorized to prescribe such procedural and administrative rules and regulations as he may deem necessary or appropriate to administer and manage the functions now or hereafter vested in him.

(Pub. L. 95–91, title VI, §644, Aug. 4, 1977, 91 Stat. 599.)
### SUBCHAPTER LIII—MERLIN DIVISION; ROGUE RIVER BASIN PROJECT, OREGON
EXHIBIT 32.1

INTERLINE BRANDS, INC.    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 Annual Report of Interline Brands, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 28,
2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael J. Grebe, Chief Executive 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:



A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

|/s/MICHAEL J. GREBEMichael J. Grebe Chief Executive
OfficerFebruary 26, 2008 |  | 
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

---



QuickLinks
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 249 (Wednesday, December 29, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 77986]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-28435]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[Order No. 1362]


Grant of Authority for Subzone Status, Mitsubishi Electric Power 
Products, Inc., (Circuit Breakers), Warrendale and Freedom, PA

    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 
18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board 
(the Board) adopts the following Order:
    Whereas, the Foreign-Trade Zones Act provides for `` * * * the 
establishment * * * of foreign-trade zones in ports of entry of the 
United States, to expedite and encourage foreign commerce, and for 
other purposes,'' and authorizes the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the 
Board) to grant to qualified corporations the privilege of establishing 
foreign-trade zones in or adjacent to U.S. Customs ports of entry;
    Whereas, the Board's regulations (15 CFR part 400) provide for the 
establishment of special-purpose subzones when existing zone facilities 
cannot serve the specific use involved, and when the activity results 
in a significant public benefit and is in the public interest;
    Whereas, the Regional Industrial Development Corporation of 
Southwestern Pennsylvania, grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 33, has made 
application for authority to establish special-purpose subzone status 
at the circuit breaker manufacturing facilities of Mitsubishi Electric 
Power Products, Inc. (MEPPI), located in Warrendale and Freedom, 
Pennsylvania (FTZ Docket 35-2003, filed 7-16-2003);
    Whereas, the application was amended on January 20, 2004, to expand 
the list of foreign-sourced components to be included within the scope 
of authority;
    Whereas, notice inviting public comment was given in the Federal 
Register (68 FR 44281, 7-28-2003; 69 FR 8379, 2-24-2004); and,
    Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the 
examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and 
Board's regulations are satisfied, and that approval of the 
application, as amended, is in the public interest;
    Now, therefore, the Board hereby grants authority for subzone 
status at the circuit breaker manufacturing facilities of Mitsubishi 
Electric Power Products, Inc., located in Warrendale and Freedom, 
Pennsylvania (Subzone 33D), at the locations described in the 
application, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, 
including section 400.28.

    Signed in Washington, DC, this 15th day of December, 2004.
James J. Jochum,
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, Alternate 
Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.
    Attest:
Dennis Puccinelli,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 04-28435 Filed 12-28-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
EXHIBIT
32.1





CERTIFICATION








In connection with the quarterly report
of Roomlinx, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30,
2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
9the “Report”), I, Michael S. Wasik, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to the best of my knowledge, 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 the Company.




Date:
            10/23/08By:
            /s/
            MichaelS. WasikMichael S.
      WasikChief Executive
      Officer and Chief Financial Officer
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

Juan Valles

,

Appellant,

v.

Sandra Baker, Alissa M. Uribe and

Kim Cole

,

Appellee s ’

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 16

- 00 132

- C V

Appeal from the

30 th District Court

of Wichita C ounty, Texas

(TC# 183,353

- A )

O R D E R

Pending before the Court is Appellant’s motion for default judgment on the ground that

the Appellees failed to file a brief. The Rules of Appellate Procedure do not authorize the

granting of a default judgment in favor of the appellant even if the appellee fails to file its brief.

Further, the Court granted Appellees’ motion for an extension of time to file their brief, and the

brief was timely filed on January 6, 2017. Appellant’s motion for a default judgment is

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 7 th day of February , 20 1 7

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure , C.J., Rodriguez

, and Palafox

, JJ.
###### Editorial Note on Part 200

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 200 appear at 69 FR 18803, Apr. 9, 2004.

#### § 200.1101 Cross-reference.

The provisions in subpart B of part 5 of this title apply to Social Security Numbers and Employer Identification Numbers for applicants in unassisted programs.

[61 FR 11118, Mar. 18, 1996]
#### § 241.630 Maximum insurance against loss.

A loan insured under this subpart shall be insured for 90 percent of any loss incurred by the person holding the note for the loan.
§ 96.70 Operation of the Complaint Registry. ( a ) The Secretary will establish a Complaint Registry to support the accrediting entities in fulfilling their oversight responsibilities, including the responsibilities of recording, screening, referring, and otherwise taking action on complaints received, and to support the Secretary in the Secretary's oversight responsibilities as the Secretary deems appropriate. The Secretary may provide for the Complaint Registry to be funded in whole or in part from fees collected by the Secretary pursuant to section 403(b) of the IAA (42 U.S.C. 14943(b)) or by the accrediting entities.
( b ) The Complaint Registry will: ( 1 ) Receive and maintain records of complaints about accredited agencies, approved persons and agencies temporarily accredited for one or two years after the Convention entered into force (including complaints concerning their use of supervised providers) and make such complaints available to the appropriate accrediting entity and the Secretary;
( 2 ) Receive and maintain information regarding action taken to resolve each complaint by the accrediting entity or the Secretary;
( 3 ) Track compliance with any deadlines applicable to the resolution of complaints;
( 4 ) Generate reports designed to show possible patterns of complaints; and
( 5 ) Perform such other functions as the Secretary may determine.
( c ) Forms and information necessary to submit complaints to the Complaint Registry electronically or by such other means as the Secretary may determine will be accessible through the Department's website to persons who wish to file complaints. Such forms will be designed to ensure that each complaint complies with the requirements of § 96.69.
( d ) Accrediting entities will have access to, and the capacity to enter data into, the Complaint Registry as the Secretary deems appropriate.
( e ) Nothing in this part shall be construed to limit the Secretary's authority to take such action as the Secretary deems appropriate with respect to complaints.
[71 FR 8131, Feb. 15, 2006, as amended at 79 FR 40636, July 14, 2014]
ex10x1.htm


Exhibit 10.1




 


 


 



AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO GOLD RESOURCE CORPORATION


AMENDED AND RESTATED NON-QUALIFIED


STOCK OPTION AND STOCK GRANT PLAN







The Gold Resource Corporation Non-Qualified Stock Option and Stock Grant Plan (the “Plan”) is hereby amended in accordance with the recommendation of the Board of Directors and the approval of the Corporation’s shareholders.  Section 4 of the Plan is hereby struck and replaced with the following:







4.           The Common Stock.







The Board is authorized to appropriate, grant Options and make Stock Grants with respect to, and otherwise issue and sell for the purposes of the Plan, a total number not in excess of 10,000,000 shares of Common Stock, either treasury or authorized but unissued, or the number and kind of shares of stock or other securities which in accordance with Section 9 shall be substituted for the 10,000,000 shares or into which such 10,000,000 shares shall be adjusted. All or any unsold shares subject to an Option or Stock Grant that for any reason expires or otherwise terminates may again be made subject to Options and Stock Grants under the Plan.












Effective: November 4, 2010
### §7671l. Federal procurement

Not later than 18 months after November 15, 1990, the Administrator, in consultation with the Administrator of the General Services Administration and the Secretary of Defense, shall promulgate regulations requiring each department, agency, and instrumentality of the United States to conform its procurement regulations to the policies and requirements of this subchapter and to maximize the substitution of safe alternatives identified under section 7671k of this title for class I and class II substances. Not later than 30 months after November 15, 1990, each department, agency, and instrumentality of the United States shall so conform its procurement regulations and certify to the President that its regulations have been modified in accordance with this section.

(July 14, 1955, ch. 360, title VI, §613, as added Pub. L. 101–549, title VI, §602(a), Nov. 15, 1990, 104 Stat. 2668.)

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Executive Order No. 12843

Ex. Ord. No. 12843, Apr. 21, 1993, 58 F.R. 21881, which provided for Federal agencies to implement policies and programs to minimize procurement of ozone-depleting substances, was revoked by Ex. Ord. No. 13148, §901, Apr. 21, 2000, 65 F.R. 24604, formerly set out as a note under section 4321 of this title.
#### Dominick Caravello, Appellant, v Pine Hollow Stud Farm, Inc., Respondent.

In an action to recover damages based upon theories of negligence and breach of contract, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County, entered September 20, 1977, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Order modified by adding thereto, after the provision that defendant’s motion is granted, the following: "except as to so much of the first cause of action as seeks damages for the loss of plaintiff’s foal, and as to such part of that cause of action, the motion is denied”. As so modified, order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements payable to appellant. The waiver of liability contained in the breeding agreement between the parties is insufficient to cover the loss of the foal. It refers only to plaintiff’s mare. The rule is clear that before the courts will sustain the validity of a prior release of negligence there must be "a clear understanding between the parties, which plainly and precisely defines the limitation of liability the party attempting to avoid responsibility seeks to obtain” *(Phibbs v Ray’s Chevrolet Corp.,*45 AD2d 897, 898; see, also, *Van Dyke Prods, v Eastman Kodak Co.,*12 NY2d 301). Appellant’s remaining point is without merit. Latham, J. P., Cohalan, Hargett and O’Connor, JJ., concur.