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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF DIGITAL EQUIPMENT CORPORATION FOR THE
SIX MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 28, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH QUARTERLY REPORT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 28, 1996
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-28-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       1,087,837
<SECURITIES>                                 1,205,988
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,126,121
<ALLOWANCES>                                   178,821
<INVENTORY>                                  1,520,745
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,096,758
<PP&E>                                       5,023,643
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,847,547
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,644,938
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,096,961
<BONDS>                                        749,514
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      4,000
<COMMON>                                       157,264
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,441,079
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,644,938
<SALES>                                      3,366,443
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,269,388
<CGS>                                        2,256,625
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,253,596
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,057,068
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              42,769
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (24,659)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,341
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (34,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (34,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.33)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### § 77.1902-1 Permissible diesel-powered equipment.

Diesel-powered equipment which has been approved by the Bureau of Mines or the Mine Safety and Health Administration under Part 36 of this chapter (Bureau of Mines Schedule 31) is permissible under the provisions of this section.
###### Editorial Note on Part 75

#### Editorial Note:

The provisions of this part marked [Statutory Provision] appear in Title III of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969.

#### § 75.906 Trailing cables for mobile equipment, ground wires, and ground check wires.

[Statutory Provisions]

Trailing cables for mobile equipment shall contain one or more ground conductors having a cross-sectional area of not less than one-half the power conductor, and, on September 30, 1970, an insulated conductor for the ground continuity check circuit or other no less effective device approved by the Secretary or his authorized representative to assure such continuity, except that an extension of time, not in excess of 12 months may be permitted by the Secretary on a mine-by-mine basis if he determines that such equipment is not available. Splices made in the cables shall provide continuity of all components.
#### ARTHUR, Respondent, v. SIRE, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 20, 1903.)

Action by Daniel V. Arthur against Henry B. Sire.

F. Bien, for appellant. W. A. Keener, for respondent.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
§ 44.14 Request for hearing. A request for hearing filed in accordance with § 44.13 of this part must be filed within 30 days after service of the proposed decision and shall include: ( a ) A concise summary of position on the issues of fact or law desired to be raised by the party requesting the hearing, including specific objections to the proposed decision. A party other than petitioner who has requested a hearing shall also comment upon all issues of fact or law presented in the petition, and
( b ) An indication of a desired hearing site.
( c ) *Partial appeal.* ( 1 ) If the Administrator has issued a proposed decision and order granting the requested modification, a request for hearing on the proposed decision and order may be made by any party based upon objection to one or more of the terms and conditions of the Administrator's proposed decision and order. If such a request for hearing is made, the request should specify which of the terms and conditions should be the subject of the hearing.
( 2 ) During the pendency of the partial appeal, the proposed decision and order of the Administrator will become final on the 30th day after service thereof, unless a request for hearing on the proposed decision and order is filed in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section by any other party. The decision and order will remain in effect as proposed by the Administrator until the terms and conditions for which the hearing was requested are modified, affirmed, or set aside by a final order of the presiding administrative law judge or the Assistant Secretary. The presiding administrative law judge shall take such action upon a determination of whether— ( i ) The terms and conditions for which the hearing was requested are necessary to ensure that the alternative method of achieving the result of the standard will at all times guarantee to the miners at the mine at least the same measure of protection afforded to the miners at the mine by such standard; or
( ii ) In the case of a petition involving a finding by the Administrator of a diminution of safety to the miners caused by application of the standard at the mine, whether the terms and conditions for which the hearing was requested are necessary to provide equivalent protection to the miners at the mine from the hazard against which the standard is directed.
[43 FR 29518, July 7, 1978, as amended at 55 FR 53441, Dec. 28, 1990]
EXHIBIT 32.1
                                                                    ------------


                           SECTION 906 CERTIFICATIONS


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, Andrew E. Kersey, the President and
Chief Executive Officer and Jeffery A. Baird, the Chief Financial Officer of CAS
Medical Systems, Inc. (the "issuer"), do hereby certify that the report on Form
10-K accompanying this certification (the "report") fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
((15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that information contained in the report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the issuer.


/s/ Andrew E. Kersey
----------------------------
Andrew E. Kersey
President and Chief Executive Officer
CAS Medical Systems, Inc.
March 18, 2008


/s/ Jeffery A. Baird
----------------------------
Jeffery A. Baird
Chief Financial Officer
CAS Medical Systems, Inc.
March 18, 2008
### §3604. Additional compensation

Officers and employees of the National Security Agency who are citizens or nationals of the United States may be granted additional compensation, in accordance with regulations which shall be prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, not in excess of additional compensation authorized by section 5941 of title 5, for employees whose rates of basic compensation are fixed by statute.

(Pub. L. 86–36, §5, May 29, 1959, 73 Stat. 63.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified in a note under section 402 of this title prior to editorial reclassification as this section.

In text, "section 5941 of title 5" substituted for "section 207 of the Independent Offices Appropriation Act, 1949, as amended (5 U.S.C. 118h)" on authority of Pub. L. 89–554, §7(b), Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 631. Section 1 of Pub. L. 89–554 enacted Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.

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

#### Effective Date

Pub. L. 86–36, §8, May 29, 1959, 73 Stat. 64, provided that: "The foregoing provisions of this Act [see Tables for classification] shall take effect on the first day of the first pay period which begins later than the thirtieth day following the date of enactment of this Act [May 29, 1959]."
(December 18, 1978)

#### Jacob W. Abraham, as Assignee for the Benefit of Creditors of J. G. V. Associates, Inc., Appellant, v Hanover Insurance Company, Respondent.

In an action on a fire insurance policy, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated March 6, 1978, which granted defendant’s motion for a protective order vacating certain of plaintiff’s interrogatories because they sought material prepared exclusively for litigation. Order modified by deleting therefrom the provision which granted defendant’s motion as to subdivision (c) of Interrogatory No. 8 and substituting therefor a provision denying the motion as to subdivision (c) of Interrogatory No. 8 insofar as it applies to eyewitnesses, if any, to the occurrence and otherwise granting the motion as to said interrogatory. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. In this action to collect the proceeds of a fire insurance policy, respondent has interposed an arson defense. Within hours after the fire, respondent learned that the police and fire officials considered it to be suspicious in origin. Aware that the insured had recently substantially increased its coverage, respondent hired a special arson investigator the day after the occurrence and retained counsel approximately one week later. A final disclaimer was not issued until after an examination of the principals of the insured and the submission by the insured of a demand for payment. Under these circumstances the items sought to be discovered in the interrogatories objected to were privileged because they were prepared exclusively in anticipation of litigation (see *Seaview Chef v Transamerica Ins. Co.,*61 AD2d 1043; *Foremost Ins. Co. v 3 Grace Ave.,*58 AD2d 590). All that is discoverable is the names of eyewitnesses to the fire (see *Zellman v Metropolitan Transp. Auth.,*40 AD2d 248). The assignee’s rights are no greater than those of the assignor (see *Matter of International Ribbon Mills [Arjan Ribbons],*36 NY2d 121) and the assignor, who remained in possession of the premises for a period of time after the fire, had an adequate opportunity to conduct an investigation pertinent to the origin of the fire. Injustice or undue hardship does not therefore provide a basis for permitting discovery. Cohalan, J. P., Margett and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Hawkins, J., dissents and votes to affirm the order on the opinion of Mr. Justice Jiudice at Special Term.
#### § 939.785 Requirements for permits for special categories of mining.

Part 785 of this chapter, *Requirements for Permits for Special Categories of Mining,* shall apply to each person who makes application for a permit to conduct certain categories of surface coal mining and reclamation operations as specified therein.
Exhibit 23.1

﻿

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

﻿

﻿

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (File No. 333-180514) and Form S-8 (File No. 333-225133) of First United Corporation and subsidiaries of our report dated March 13, 2020, relating to the consolidated financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2019.  

﻿

﻿

/s/ Baker Tilly Virchow Krause, LLP

﻿

﻿

﻿

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

March 13, 2020

----
#### Universal Vending Service Company, appellee, v. Onofrio Serritella, also known as Oniferro Serritella, appellant.

Gen. No. 28,607.

Consolidated with No. 28,578 ante. Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Henry M. Walker, Judge, presiding. Heard in the second division of this court for the first district.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed November 27, 1923.

Per Curiam.
Dismissed; Opinion Filed September 20, 2019.

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 19
- 01087
- CV IN RE GREGORY GARDNE R , Relator Original Proceeding from the Justice of the Peace, Precinct 1, Place 1 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. JE
- 190590311 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Whitehill, Partida

- Kipness, and Pedersen, III

Opinion by Justice Partida

- Kipness Before the Co u rt is relator’s September 6 , 2019 petition fo r writ of mandamus in which he complains about a ruling from a Dallas County Justice of the Peace

. This Court does no t have writ jurisdiction over a justice of the peace unless the justice is interfering with our appellate jurisdiction. See T EX
. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN
. § 22.221(a) , (b) (court of appeals may only issue writ of mandamus against district and county judges or as necessary to enforce its own jurisd i ction ); see also In re Fountain , No. 05

- 17

- 00949

- CV , 2017 WL 3587120, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Dallas Aug. 21, 2107, orig. proceeding). Because no appeal related to relator is pending in the Court, our jurisdiction is not in jeopardy. We therefore dismiss this proceeding for want of jurisdiction.

191087F.P05 /Robbie Partida

- Kipness/ ROBBIE PARTIDA

- KIPNESS JUSTICE
# C_2023041EN.01001801.xml

| 3.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 41/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 41/18

---

Special report 02/2023:

‘Adapting cohesion policy rules to respond to COVID-19 – Funds used more flexibly, but reflection needed on cohesion policy as a crisis response tool’

(2023/C 41/05)

The European Court of Auditors has published its special report 02/2023: ‘Adapting cohesion policy rules to respond to COVID-19 – Funds used more flexibly, but reflection needed on cohesion policy as a crisis response tool’.

The report can be consulted directly or downloaded at the European Court of Auditors’ website: https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/DocItem.aspx?did=63210

---
§ 723.17 Procedures for assessment of civil penalties. ( a ) Within 15 days of service of a notice or order, the person to whom it was issued may submit written information about the violation to the Office and to the inspector who issued the notice of violation or cessation order. The Office shall consider any information so submitted in determining the facts surrounding the violation and the amount of the penalty.
( b ) The Office shall serve a copy of the proposed assessment and of the work sheet showing the computation of the proposed assessment on the person to whom the notice or order was issued, by certified mail, or by any alternative means consistent with the rules governing service of a summons and complaint under Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, within 30 days of the issuance of the notice or order. If a copy of the proposed assessment and work sheet or the certified mail is tendered at the address of that person set forth in the sign required under 30 CFR 715.12(b) or at any address at which that person is in fact located, and he or she refuses to accept delivery or to collect such documents, the requirements of this paragraph shall be deemed to have been complied with upon such tender.
( c ) Unless a conference has been requested, the Office shall review and reassess any penalty if necessary to consider facts which were not reasonably available on the date of issuance of the proposed assessment because of the length of the abatement period. The Office shall serve a copy of any such reassessment and of the worksheet showing the computation of the reassessment in the manner provided in paragraph (b) of this section, within 30 days after the date the violation is abated.
[45 FR 58783, Sept. 4, 1980, as amended at 56 FR 28445, June 20, 1991]
### §60146. Radio frequency allocation

(a) Application to Federal Communications Commission.—To the extent required by the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 151 et seq.), an application shall be filed with the Federal Communications Commission for any radio facilities involved with commercial remote sensing space systems licensed under subchapter III.

(b) Deadline for FCC Action.—It is the intent of Congress that the Federal Communications Commission complete the radio licensing process under the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 151 et seq.), upon the application of any private sector party or consortium operator of any commercial land remote sensing space system subject to this chapter, within 120 days of the receipt of an application for such licensing. If final action has not occurred within 120 days of the receipt of such an application, the Federal Communications Commission shall inform the applicant of any pending issues and of actions required to resolve them.

(c) Development and Construction of United States Systems.—Authority shall not be required from the Federal Communications Commission for the development and construction of any United States land remote sensing space system (or component thereof), other than radio transmitting facilities or components, while any licensing determination is being made.

(d) Consistency With International Obligations and Public Interest.—Frequency allocations made pursuant to this section by the Federal Communications Commission shall be consistent with international obligations and with the public interest.

(Pub. L. 111–314, §3, Dec. 18, 2010, 124 Stat. 3420.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 60146 | 15 U.S.C. 5656. | Pub. L. 102–555, title V, §506, Oct. 28, 1992, 106 Stat. 4177. |

Section

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Communications Act of 1934, referred to in subsecs. (a) and (b), is act June 19, 1934, ch. 652, 48 Stat. 1064, which is classified principally to chapter 5 (§151 et seq.) of Title 47, Telecommunications. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 609 of Title 47 and Tables.
§ 702.13 Public availability of information. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, all information submitted to the regulatory authority under this part shall be made immediately available for public inspection and copying at the local offices of the regulatory authority having jurisdiction over the mining operations claiming exemption until at least three years after expiration of the period during which the subject mining area is active.
( b ) The regulatory authority may keep information submitted to the regulatory authority under this part confidential if the person submitting it requests in writing, at the time of submission, that it be kept confidential and the information concerns trade secrets or is privileged commercial or financial information of the persons intending to conduct operations under this part.
( c ) Information requested to be held as confidential under paragraph (b) of this section shall not be made publicly available until after notice and opportunity to be heard is afforded persons both seeking and opposing disclosure of the information.
### SUBCHAPTER I—AWARDS FOR SUPERIOR ACCOMPLISHMENTS

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1981—Pub. L. 97–35, title XVII, §1703(b)(1), Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 756, added heading for subchapter I.
#### § 941.845 Civil penalties.

Part 845 of this chapter, *Civil Penalties,* shall apply when civil penalties are assessed for violations on surface coal mining and reclamation operations.
M. P. No. 77-5.

#### Providence Broadcasting Co., Inc. *v.*Archie Smith *et al.*

*Letts, Quinn & Licht, Daniel J. Murray,*for petitioner.

*Harold W. Demopulos,*for Newport Cable TV, Inc.

*Tobin, LeRoy & Silverstein, Max Wistow, Merrill W. Sherman,*for Plantations CATV Co., Inc.

*George C. Berk,*for Cable Television of Rhode Island, Inc.

*Charles J. McGovern,*for Vision Cable Company of Rhode Island, Inc.

Petition for writ of certiorari is granted and the writ shall issue forthwith.
#### § 819.1 Scope.

This part sets environmental protection performance standards for surface coal mining and reclamation operations involving auger mining.
#### § 845.2 Objective.

Civil penalties are assessed under section 518 of the Act and this part to deter violations and to ensure maximum compliance with the terms and purposes of the Act on the part of the coal mining industry.
### §20133. Permission to carry firearms

As the Administrator deems necessary in the public interest, the Administrator may—

(1) direct officers and employees of the Administration to carry firearms while in the conduct of their official duties; and

(2) authorize employees of contractors and subcontractors of the Administration who are engaged in the protection of property owned by the United States, and located at facilities owned by or contracted to the United States, to carry firearms while in the conduct of their official duties.

(Pub. L. 111–314, §3, Dec. 18, 2010, 124 Stat. 3338.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 20133 | 42 U.S.C. 2456. | Pub. L. 85–568, title III, §304(e), July 29, 1958, 72 Stat. 435. |

Section
#### Alvin S. Miot, Respondent, v. JoCarl Realty Corp. et al., Appellants.

In an action to recover damages for personal injury, both defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated April 3, 1962, which granted plaintiff’s motion to vacate the prior orders dismissing the complaint against the defendants for lack of prosecution, on condition that plaintiff pay to each defendant $25 for its expenses. As to the defendant Conacchio: Order of April 3, 1962, reversed, without costs, and plaintiff’s motion to vacate the prior order dismissing the complaint as to said defendant denied. As to the defendant JoCarl: Order of April 3, 1962 modified by striking out the provision imposing the condition that plaintiff pay to said defendant $25 for its expenses; and as so modified, order affirmed, without costs, as to said defendant. With respect to the defendant Conacchio: In our opinion, the unreasonable excuses offered for trial counsel’s two defaults, and the absence of any excuse for the delay of five months in moving to vacate the dismissal order, constituted persistent wrongful conduct in disregard of the rules governing the course of litigation. With respect to the defendant JoCarl: The original dismissal order was jurisdictionally void for it was based on insufficient notice of motion, seven days’ notice having been given instead of the eight days requisite here (Civ. Prac. Act, § 164; Rules Civ. Prac., rule 60; *Morabito*V. *Champion Swimming Pool Corp.,*18 A D 2d 706; *Silverman*v. *Silverman,*261 App. Div. 1106). Hence, the order appealed from properly vacated such void dismissal order. However, under the circumstances, the void dismissal order should have been vacated unconditionally. Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Brennan and Hill, JJ., concur.