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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          25,526
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  309,585
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,014,796
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,316,602
<PP&E>                                       4,790,035
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,756,053
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,979,497
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,332,977
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        16,934
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,119,363
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,979,497
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,330,416
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  994,204
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               396,786
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             103,164
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (163,738)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    65,495
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (98,243)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (98,243)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.07)
        

</TABLE>
#### Oscar Kapp, Appellant, v. Aaron Gilman, Respondent.

In an action to recover damages for injuries to person and property, arising out of the collision of two motor vehicles at a street intersection, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated January 18, 1960, denying his motion for summary judgment, pursuant to rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Nolan, P. J., Beldoek, Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Christ, JJ., concur.
### §413a. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 413a, comprising section 502 of the National Security Act of 1947, act July 26, 1947, ch. 343, was editorially reclassified as section 3092 of this title.
#### § 36.1 Purpose.

The regulations in this part set forth the requirements for mobile diesel-powered transportation equipment to procure their approval and certification as permissible; procedures for applying for such certification; and fees.

[61 FR 55525, Oct. 25, 1996]
§ 870.23 Consequences of noncompliance. If you do not maintain adequate records, provide us with access to records of a surface coal mining operation, or pay overdue reclamation fees, including interest on late payments or underpayments, we may take one or more of the following actions: ( a ) Start a legal action against you;
( b ) Report you to the Internal Revenue Service;
( c ) Report you to State agencies responsible for taxation;
( d ) Report you to credit bureaus;
( e ) Refer you to collection agencies; or
( f ) Take some other appropriate action against you.
[73 FR 67633, Nov. 14, 2008]
# C_2023236EN.01000301.xml

| 4.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 236/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 236/3

---

Publication of an update to the list of national standardisation bodies pursuant to Article 27 of Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on European standardisation

(2023/C 236/03)

1.   BELGIUM

NBN

Bureau de normalisation

Bureau voor Normalisatie

CEB/BEC

Comité électrotechnique belge

Belgisch Elektrotechnisch Comité

2.   BULGARIA

БИС

Български институт за стандартизация

КРС

Комисия за регулиране на съобщенията

3.   CZECH REPUBLIC

ÚNMZ

Úřad pro technickou normalizaci, metrologii a státní zkušebnictví

4.   DENMARK

DS

Fonden Dansk Standard

5.   GERMANY

DIN

Deutsches Institut für Normung e.V.

DKE

Deutsche Kommission Elektrotechnik Elektronik Informationstechnik im DIN und VDE

6.   ESTONIA

EVS

Eesti Standardimis- ja Akrediteerimiskeskus

TTJA

Tarbijakaitse ja Tehnilise Järelevalve Amet

7.   IRELAND

NSAI

National Standards Authority of Ireland

8.   GREECE

ΕΣΥΠ / ΕΛΟΤ

ΕΘΝΙΚΟ ΣΥΣΤΗΜΑ ΥΠΟΔΟΜΩΝ ΠΟΙΟΤΗΤΑΣ / Αυτοτελής Λειτουργική Μονάδα Τυποποίησης ΕΛΟΤ

9.   SPAIN

UNE

Asociación Española de Normalización

10.   FRANCE

AFNOR

Association française de normalisation

11.   CROATIA

HZN

Hrvatski zavod za norme

12.   ITALY

UNI

Ente Italiano di Normazione

CEI

Comitato elettrotecnico italiano

13.   CYPRUS

CYS

Κυπριακός Οργανισμός Τυποποίησης (Cyprus Organisation for Standardisation)

14.   LATVIA

LVS

Latvijas standarts

15.   LITHUANIA

LST

Lietuvos standartizacijos departamentas

16.   LUXEMBOURG

ILNAS

Institut luxembourgeois de normalisation, de l’accréditation, de la sécurité et qualité des produits et services

17.   HUNGARY

MSZT

Magyar Szabványügyi Testület

18.   MALTA

MCCAA

L-Awtorita’ ta’ Malta għall-Kompetizzjoni u għall-Affarijiet tal-Konsumatur

19.   NETHERLANDS

NEN

Stichting Koninklijk Nederlands Normalisatie Instituut

NEC

Stichting Koninklijk Nederlands Elektrotechnisch Comité

20.   AUSTRIA

ASI

Austrian Standards International – Standardisierung und Innovation

OVE

Österreichischer Verband für Elektrotechnik

21.   POLAND

PKN

Polski Komitet Normalizacyjny

22.   PORTUGAL

IPQ

Instituto Português da Qualidade

23.   ROMANIA

ASRO

Asociaţia de Standardizare din România

24.   SLOVENIA

SIST

Slovenski inštitut za standardizacijo

25.   SLOVAKIA

ÚNMS SR

Úrad pre normalizáciu, metrológiu a skúšobníctvo Slovenskej republiky

26.   FINLAND

SFS

Suomen Standardisoimisliitto SFS ry

Finlands Standardiseringsförbund SFS rf

TRAFICOM

Liikenne- ja viestintävirasto Traficom

Transport- och kommunikationsverket Traficom

SESKO

Suomen Sähköteknillinen Standardisoimisyhdistys SESKO ry

Finlands Elektrotekniska Standardiseringsförening SESKO rf

27.   SWEDEN

SIS

Swedish Institute for Standards

SEK

Svensk Elstandard

ITS

Informationstekniska standardiseringen

28.   ICELAND

IST

Staðlaráð Íslands (Icelandic Standards)

29.   NORWAY

SN

Standard Norge

NEK

Norsk Elektroteknisk Komité

Nkom

Nasjonal kommunikasjonsmyndighet

---
Exhibit 32.1





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 Dionics, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), the undersigned certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of the undersigneds knowledge, 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.







Dated:    July 14, 2008

By:

/s/ Bernard Kravitz

Bernard Kravitz,

President and Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)





Dated:    July 14, 2008

By:

/s/ Bernard Kravitz

Bernard Kravitz,

Principal Financial Officer
Editorial Note on Part 816
Editorial Note: At 82 FR 54979, Nov. 17, 2017, as required by the Congressional Review Act and Public Law 115-5, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement removed all amendments to part 816 made effective on Jan. 19, 2017, at 81 FR 93392, Dec. 20, 2016.

§ 816.84 Coal mine waste: Impounding structures. New and existing impounding structures constructed of coal mine waste or intended to impound coal mine waste shall meet the requirements of § 816.81. ( a ) Coal mine waste shall not be used for construction of impounding structures unless it has been demonstrated to the regulatory authority that the stability of such a structure conforms to the requirements of this part and the use of coal mine waste will not have a detrimental effect on downstream water quality or the environment due to acid seepage through the impounding structure. The stability of the structure and the potential impact of acid mine seepage through the impounding structure shall be discussed in detail in the design plan submitted to the regulatory authority in accordance with § 780.25 of this chapter.
( b ) ( 1 ) Each impounding structure constructed of coal mine waste or intended to impound coal mine waste shall be designed, constructed and maintained in accordance with § 816.49 (a) and (c). Such structures may not be retained permanently as part of the approved postmining land use.
( 2 ) Each impounding structure constructed of coal mine waste or intended to impound coal mine waste that meets the criteria of § 77.216(a) of this title shall have sufficient spillway capacity to safely pass, adequate storage capacity to safely contain, or a combination of storage capacity and spillway capacity to safely control, the probable maximum precipitation of a 6-hour precipitation event, or greater event as specified by the regulatory authority.
( c ) Spillways and outlet works shall be designed to provide adequate protection against erosion and corrosion. Inlets shall be protected against blockage.
( d ) *Drainage control.* Runoff from areas above the disposal facility or runoff from surface of the facility that may cause instability or erosion of the impounding structure shall be diverted into stabilized diversion channels designed to meet the requirements of § 816.43 and designed to safely pass the round off from a 100-year, 6-hour design precipitation event.
( e ) Impounding structures constructed of or impounding coal mine waste shall be designed so that at least 90 percent of the water stored during the design precipitation event can be removed within a 10-day period.
( f ) For an impounding structure constructed of or impounding coal mine waste, at least 90 percent of the water stored during the design precipitation event shall be removed within the 10-day period following the design precipitation event.
[48 FR 44029, Sept. 26, 1983, as amended at 53 FR 43606, Oct. 27, 1988; 81 FR 93392, Dec. 20, 2016; 82 FR 54979, Nov. 17, 2017]
§ 77.1109 Quantity and location of firefighting equipment. Preparation plants, dryer plants, tipples, drawoff tunnels, shops, and other surface installations shall be equipped with the following firefighting equipment. ( a ) Each structure presenting a fire hazard shall be provided with portable fire extinguishers commensurate with the potential fire hazard at the structure in accordance with the recommendations of the National Fire Protection Association.
( b ) Preparation plants shall be equipped with waterlines, with outlet valves on each floor, and with sufficient fire hose to project a water stream to any point in the plant. However, where freezing conditions exist or water is not available, a 125-pound multipurpose dry powder extinguisher may be substituted for the purposes of this paragraph (b) for each 2,500 square feet of floor space in a wooden or other flammable structure, or for each 5,000 square feet of floor space in a metal, concrete-block, or other type of non-flammable construction.
( c ) ( 1 ) Mobile equipment, including trucks, front-end loaders, bulldozers, portable welding units, and augers, shall be equipped with at least one portable fire extinguisher.
( 2 ) Power shovels, draglines, and other large equipment shall be equipped with at least one portable fire extinguisher; however, additional fire extinguishers may be required by an authorized representative of the Secretary.
( 3 ) Auxiliary equipment such as portable drills, sweepers, and scrapers, when operated more than 600 feet from equipment required to have portable fire extinguishers, shall be equipped with at least one fire extinguisher.
( d ) Fire extinguishers shall be provided at permanent electrical installations commensurate with the potential fire hazard at such installation in accordance with the recommendations of the National Fire Protection Association.
( e ) Two portable fire extinguishers, or the equivalent, shall be provided at each of the following combustible liquid storage installations: ( 1 ) Near each above ground or unburied combustible liquid storage station; and,
( 2 ) Near the transfer pump of each buried combustible liquid storage tank.
( f ) Vehicles transporting explosives and blasting agents shall be equipped with fire protection as recommended in Code 495, section 20, National Fire Protection Association Handbook, 12th Edition, 1962.
#### § 56.9306 Warning devices for restricted clearances.

Where restricted clearance creates a hazard to persons on mobile equipment, warning devices shall be installed in advance of the restricted area and the restricted area shall be conspicuously marked.
FILED

COURT OF APPEAL. 

DIVISION II

20E1 DEC - 2 AM 9: 00

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STArtgMA, WWNGTON

DIVISION II

ESTATE OF ROBERT J. MASON, by

and through its Personal Representative, 

Respondent, 

v. 

STATE OF WASHINGTON, 

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, 

Appellant. 

No. 45038 -1 - 1I

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

MAXA, J. — The Department of Revenue appealed a trial court order ordering it

to issue a final release of estate tax liability as to the Estate of Robert J. Mason. That

order was based on our Supreme Court' s opinion in In re Estate ofBracken, 175 Wn.2d

549, 290 P. 3d 99 ( 2012). In response to Bracken, in 2013 the legislature amended the

Estate and Transfer Tax Act, chapter 83. 100 RCW, retroactive to estates of decedents, 

like Mason, who died on or after May 17, 2005. Challenges to those amendments, 

including their retroactivity, were brought by estates and considered by the Supreme

Court in In re Estate ofHambleton, No. 89419 -1. This appeal was stayed pending a

decision in Hambleton. 

On October 2, 2014, the Court issued its opinion in Hambleton, upholding the

validity of the 2013 amendment. In re Estate ofHambleton, Wn.2d , 335 P. 3d
45038 -1 - II

398 ( 2014). The Department and the Estate agree that the Hambleton opinion resolves

this appeal in favor of the Department and that the trial court' s order should be reversed. 

Accordingly, we reverse the trial court' s order in favor of the Estate and remand to the

trial court for entry ofjudgment in favor of the Department without an award of fees or

costs to either party. The mandate will issue upon filing of this opinion. 

A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the

Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW

2. 06. 040, it is so ordered. 

We concur: 

2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>   5
<LEGEND>
    THE SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM THE
    CONSOLIDATED  FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (UNAUDITED) OF DOUGHTIE'S FOODS, INC. FOR
    THE NINE MONTHS ENDED  SEPTEMBER 27, 1997,  AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
    BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-27-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 DEC-29-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-27-1997
<CASH>                                                 165
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        9,348
<ALLOWANCES>                                           584
<INVENTORY>                                          5,004
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    14,522
<PP&E>                                               6,148
<DEPRECIATION>                                       3,446
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      17,334
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                5,665
<BONDS>                                              2,926
<COMMON>                                               997
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<OTHER-SE>                                           7,747
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        17,334
<SALES>                                             64,548
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    64,548
<CGS>                                               54,058
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       63,067
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     178
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      1,303
<INCOME-TAX>                                           488
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    815
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                           815
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          .82
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          .82
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

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 Constar International Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Michael J. Hoffman, President and 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:

(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.



|                                                        
|--------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ MICHAEL J. HOFFMAN                                  
|                                                        
|Michael J. Hoffman President and Chief Executive Officer

May 15, 2009
#### IRVING v. PULLMAN CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

June 22, 1903.)

1. Carriers—Sleeping Car Companies—Loss of Property—Negligence.

Where a passenger on a sleeping ear gave his umbrella to a porter, who was alone in charge of the ear, and it was never returned to him, the negligence of the company was sufficiently shown to sustain a judgment for its value.

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Second District.

Action by Richard A. Irving against the Pullman Company. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J., and GILDERSLEEVE and MacLEAN, JJ.

Saunders, Webb & Worcester, for appellant.

R. A. Irving, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff was a passenger on defendant’s sleeping car. He gave his umbrella to the porter, who alone was in charge of the car, to take to his berth, and then went to bed. The next morning he could not find the umbrella. No explanation of its loss has been furnished by defendant. Apparently the plaintiff did not see the umbrella after giving it to the porter to be carried to his berth. The justice gave judgment for plaintiff for $5 damages and $2 costs. Under the undisputed evidence of plaintiff, we will not interfere with the conclusion of the court below, as the negligence of defendant is sufficiently shown. See William v. Webb, 27 Misc. Rep. 508, 511, 58 N. Y. Supp. 300 (Leventritt, J.) ; Carpenter v. R. R. Co., 124 N. Y. 53, 57, 26 N. E. 277, 11 L. R. A. 759,.21 Am. St. Rep. 644.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Willis Aylesworth, Respondent, v. Middletown State Hospital et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Appeal from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board which, among other things, awarded death benefits to children over 18 years of age. Decedent was awarded and paid compensation for occupational tuberculosis for about five years prior to his death from the same cause. Death benefits awarded to the widow and to four children then under 18 years were paid for some time but the award to the children is now contested on the ground that they are not “dependent blind or crippled” children (Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 16, subd. 2) so as to be entitled to benefits after attaining the age of 18 years. The disability contemplated is that of *“*totally blind or physically disabled children whose disablement is total and permanent ”. (Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 16, subd. 1-a.) Although suggesting here that *“*disablement ” by reason of mental infirmity is not included, appellants did *not*raise that issue *in*their application for review and, indeed, seem to have conceded, before the board, that the children are permanently and totally disabled and that “ the question after 18 is whether or not these children were dependent upon the father (.See Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 23; *Matter of La Barge*v. *Mercy Gen. Hosp.,*12 A D 2d 689; 690, motion for leave to appeal denied 9 N Y 2d 610; *Matter of Braune*v. *Haas,*13 A D 2d 875, 876; and as to the merits, see *Matter of Kelly*v. *Sugarman,*14 A D 2d 980, motion for leave to appeal granted 11 N Y 2d 641.) Thus, the sole issue is as to dependency, which is dealt with in subdivision 2, above quoted, under which dependency is not prerequisite to an award to a child under 18 but is obviously required to be proven in the ease of a “dependent blind or crippled” child beyond that age. In this ease the board did not find that dependency had been established by evidence thereof but, rather, “ that inasmuch as the children were under the age of 18 prior to the father’s death and had been dependent upon him *by statute,*they are still entitled to benefits after the age of 18 since they are permanently totally disabled.” (Emphasis supplied.) This finding seems to us to rest upon the same theory of a presumption of continuance of dependency as the award which we reversed in *Matter of Department of Mental Hygiene*v. *Consolidated Constr. Co.*(280 App. Div. 652), in which we said (p. 654): “ There is no provision in the Workmen’s Compensation Law for such a presumption, and we know of no authority for the board to indulge in such a presumption. Where dependency is an essential prerequisite to an *1001award it must be established as a fact by proof.” Decision and award reversed, with costs to appellants against the Workmen’s Compensation Board, and matter remitted to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Bergan, P. J., Gibson, Herlihy, Reynolds and Taylor, JJ., concur.
### §432b. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 432b, comprising section 704 of the National Security Act of 1947, act July 26, 1947, ch. 343, was editorially reclassified as section 3144 of this title.