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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1996
<CASH>                                           24686
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    19746
<ALLOWANCES>                                      1072
<INVENTORY>                                       9536
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 56779
<PP&E>                                           82947
<DEPRECIATION>                                   52774
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   95718
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            12170
<BONDS>                                            200
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         53125
<OTHER-SE>                                      120266
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     95718
<SALES>                                         115849
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                115849
<CGS>                                            78559
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    78559
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 20867
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  61
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  17530
<INCOME-TAX>                                      6596
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              10934
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     10934
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .67
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .67
        

</TABLE>
#### James Lacovara, Respondent, v. Fleet Transportation Co., Inc., et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained as the result of a collision at a street intersection between an automobile owned and operated by defendant Braceonier, in which plaintiff was a passenger, and an automobile owned by defendant Fleet Transportation Co., Inc., leased to defendant Libby, McNeill & Libby and operated by defendant Dalotto, all the defendants, other than defendant Dalotto (who was not served with process), appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered March 4, 1960, after a jury trial, on a verdict of $30,000, in favor of plaintiff and against defendants (appellants) Fleet, Braceonier and Libby. Judgment affirmed, with costs. The complaint sufficiently alleged a cause of *958action in negligence against the defendants *(Peterson*v. *Eighmie,*175 App. Div. 113; *Wylie*v. *Stevens,*261 App. Div. 1031); and, in any event, no claim to the contrary was advanced on the trial (cf. *Knapp*v. *Simon,*96 N. Y. 284, 291-292). We are also of the opinion that the record presented questions of fact as to the negligence of all the defendants (cf. *Shea*v. *Judson,*283 N. Y. 393; *Foster*v. *Fish,*263 App. Div. 1044) and as to the nature and extent of plaintiff’s injuries; and that the verdict, both as to liability and amount, was supported by the proof. With respect to the charge, defendants Fleet and Libby are in no position to urge that the trial court erred: (1) in refusing to charge, as they had requested, that the negligence of defendant Bracconier was imputable to plaintiff if the plaintiff, Bracconier and others were using “ each others cars to get to work at different periods; ” and (2) in charging, instead, that Braeconier’s negligence was not attributable to plaintiff, since said defendants (Fleet and Libby) failed to except either to such refusal or to such charge (cf. *Brown*v. *Du Frey,*1 N Y 2d 190, 195; Civ. Prac. Act, § 446). In any event, we are of the opinion that the court’s ruling was correct (cf. *Allen*v. *Clark,*148 Neb. 627). Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Kleinfeld, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.
### SUBCHAPTER VIII–B—TRADE AND FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL AFFAIRS
### §1969. Repealed. Pub. L. 93–24, §1, Apr. 20, 1973, 87 Stat. 24

Section, Pub. L. 87–128, title III, §328, as added Pub. L. 92–385, §5, Aug. 16, 1972, 86 Stat. 557, provided for emergency loans for major and natural disasters occurring between June 30, 1971, and July 1, 1973, providing in: subsec. (a) for cancellation of existing loans and the considerations in making grants, loans, and refinancing of loans; subsec. (b) for loans for loss or damage to agricultural crops; subsec. (c) for amount of loans and interest rates; subsec. (d) for availability of benefits irrespective of age; subsec. (e) for availability of benefits irrespective of approval date; and subsec. (f) for report to Congress.

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

#### Loans to Eligible Applicants in Areas Determined as Natural Disaster Areas After January 1, 1972, and Before December 27, 1972; Time for Acceptance of Applications

Pub. L. 93–24, §8, Apr. 20, 1973, 87 Stat. 25, provided that: "Notwithstanding the repeal herein of section 5 of Public Law 92–385 [this section], and notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Agriculture shall make loans in accordance with the provisions of section 5 of Public Law 92–385 [this section] to eligible applicants in natural disaster areas determined or designated by the Secretary of Agriculture where such determination or designation had been made after January 1, 1972 and prior to December 27, 1972. The authority to accept applications for such loans shall expire 18 days after the effective date of this Act [Apr. 20, 1973]."

#### Continuation of Secretary's Authority With Respect to Natural Disasters Occurring After December 26, 1972, and Prior to April 20, 1973

Pub. L. 93–237, §4, Jan. 2, 1974, 87 Stat. 1024, provided that: "Notwithstanding the provisions of Public Law 93–24 [which repealed this section], the Secretary of Agriculture shall continue to exercise his authority with respect to natural disasters which occurred after December 26, 1972, but prior to April 20, 1973, in accordance with the provisions of section 5 of Public Law 92–385 [this section] as such section was in effect prior to April 20, 1973."
#### In the Matter of Kathleen D. Carruthers, Petitioner, v. James E. Allen, Jr., as Commissioner of Education of the State of New York, Respondent.

Proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the Civil Practice Act to review a determination of the Commissioner of Education. Petitioner is a registered nurse whose license has been revoked by the Commissioner of Education on finding that these charges were sustained: (a) that she was addicted to narcotic drugs; and (b) that she was guilty of fraud and deceit in the practice of her profession. The charge of drug addiction is not sufficiently sustained by the record. The only proof on this charge is that petitioner took 10 dosages of pantopon of one-sixth grain each. These were at widely separated times — a week or 10 days apart. Addiction must be something more than this. The term *“*addicted to ” as employed in the statute (Education Law, § 6911, subd. 1, par. f) was construed in *Matter of Palmer*v. *Spaulding*(299 N. Y. 368) to be more than occasional use of drugs. The crucial question is whether the use is habitual and intemperate — in layman’s language, whether petitioner had become a slave to the drug. The 10 doses shown in the record fall quite short of this requirement. On the other hand the record does show that while employed at a hospital petitioner removed 30 ce vials of demerol on two occasions from the hospital stock and took them home without making notations on the record to show that this had been done; and failed to note on the record the actual use of the 10 one-sixth grains of pantopon which petitioner administered to herself. This personal diversion of drugs, not petitioner’s property, and without proper notation in the record in the sensitive area of narcotic drug control, could reasonably be found to have been fraud and deceit within paragraph d of subdivision 1 of section 6911. But if part of the charge is sustained by the record, and part not sustained, the respondent Commissioner should re-examine the question of severity of punishment. Determination annulled, without costs, and proceeding remitted to respondent to re-examine the question of punishment. Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Reynolds and Taylor, JJ., concur.
### §12e. Repealed. Pub. L. 106–554, §1(a)(5) [title I, §123(a)(21)], Dec. 21, 2000, 114 Stat. 2763, 2763A–410

Section, act Sept. 21, 1922, ch. 369, §8e, as added Pub. L. 102–546, title II, §202(a), Oct. 28, 1992, 106 Stat. 3598, related to Commission oversight and deficiency orders.
Exhibit 14.1

CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in
  the Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 333-111310) of Elron Electronic Industries
  Ltd pertaining to the Employees Stock Option Plans of Elron Electronic
  Industries Ltd. of our report dated January 30, 2005, with respect to the financial
  statements of ChipX (Israel) Limited (former name: Chip Express (Israel) Ltd.),
  is included in the Elron Electronic Industries Ltd. Annual Report on Form 20-F
  for the year ended December 31, 2004.

|               |                                    | 
|-------------- | ---------------------------------- | 
|Haifa, Israel  | KOST FORER GABBAY & KASIERER       | 
|March 12, 2006 | A Member of Ernst &
  Young Global | 

11

---
§ 537.2 Scope of non-maritime affirmative claims statutes. ( a ) *Recovery for government property loss or damage.* The FCCA, originally passed in 1966, gives federal agencies the authority to collect a claim of the United States government for money or property arising out of the activities of the agency in question. However, the broad authority is limited for purposes of this regulation to claims for loss of or damage to property, as the FMCRA takes precedence for medical care recoveries.
( b ) *Recovery for medical expenses and lost military pay.* ( 1 ) The FMCRA, passed in 1962, authorizes recovery from a third person of the expenses for medical care the United States furnishes to a person who is injured or suffers a disease when such care is authorized or required by law. Likewise the United States is authorized to recover the cost of pay for members of the uniformed services unable to perform duties. Recovery normally arises out of a third-party tort under local law as to which the United States has an independent cause of action.
( 2 ) Under 10 U.S.C. 1095 the United States is also deemed a third-party beneficiary or subrogee under an alternative system of computations such as workers' compensation; hospital lien laws; contract rights under the terms of insurance policies including medical payment coverage; uninsured, underinsured and no-fault coverage; and no-fault laws.
( c ) *Recovery of health insurance.* 10 U.S.C. 1095 permits recovery of health insurance for medical care furnished at military medical treatment facilities (MTFs), including supplemental policies. This third-party collection program has been delegated to the Surgeon General of the Army by the Judge Advocate General (TJAG).
( d ) *Worldwide applicability.* The foregoing authorities are worldwide in application, except for intergovernmental claims waived by treaty, for example, North Atlantic Treaty Association Status of Forces Agreement (NATO SOFA), Article VIII, paragraph 1.
### SUBCHAPTER IV—BORDER, MARITIME, AND TRANSPORTATION SECURITY

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Pub. L. 114–125, title VIII, §802(g)(1)(B)(i), Feb. 24, 2016, 130 Stat. 211, substituted "BORDER, MARITIME, AND TRANSPORTATION SECURITY" for "DIRECTORATE OF BORDER AND TRANSPORTATION SECURITY" in subchapter heading.
§ 536.22 Claims investigative responsibility—General. ( a ) *Scope.* This subpart addresses the investigation, processing, evaluation, and settlement of tort and tort-related claims for and against the United States. The provisions of this subpart do not apply to personnel claims (AR 27-20, chapter 11), or to claims under subpart G of this part, §§ 536.114 through 536.116.
( b ) *Cooperation.* Claims investigation requires team effort between the U.S. Army Claims Service (USARCS), command claims services, and area claims offices (ACOs) including U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) District Offices, claims processing offices (CPOs), and unit claims officers. Essential to this effort is the immediate investigation of claims incidents. Prompt investigation depends on the timely reporting of claims incidents as well as continuous communication between all commands or echelons bearing claims responsibility.
( c ) *Notification to USARCS.* A CPO or an ACO receiving notice of a potentially compensable event (PCE) that requires investigation will immediately refer it to the appropriate claims office. The Commander USARCS will be notified of all major incidents involving serious injury or death or those in which property damage exceeds $50,000. A command claims service may delegate to an ACO the responsibility for advising USARCS of serious incidents and complying with mirror file requirements. A copy of the written delegation and any changes made thereafter will be forwarded to the Commander USARCS.
( d ) *Geographic concept of responsibility.* A command claims service or an ACO in whose geographic area a claims incident occurs is primarily responsible for initiating investigation and processing of any claim filed in the absence of a formal transfer of responsibility (see §§ 536.30 through 536.36). DOD and Army organizations whose personnel are involved in the incident will cooperate with and assist the ACO, regardless of where the former may be located.
Note to § 536.22 :
See the parallel discussion at DA Pam 27-162, paragraph 2-1.
§ 274.7 Acceptance of bids. ( a ) *Opening bids.* Bids will be opened at the time and place specified in the public notice.
( b ) *Acceptance of successful bid.* The Secretary of Defense or his designee will notify any successful bidder of acceptance in the manner and form specified in the public notice.
EXHIBIT 23.1


            Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm


Provectus Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Knoxville, Tennessee

We  hereby  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in  the  Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-99639, 333-86896, 333-73994 and 333-109354) and
on Form S-2 (Nos. 333-112762 and 333-119619) of Provectus Pharmaceuticals,  Inc.
of our report dated February 11, 2005,  relating to the  consolidated  financial
statements, which appears in this Form 10-KSB.

/s/ BDO Seidman, LLP
--------------------
BDO Seidman, LLP
Chicago, Illinois

March 30, 2005
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1292 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
H. Res. 1292

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                         June 12, 2024.
    Resolved, That Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General, U.S. Department of 
Justice, shall be found to be in contempt of Congress for failure to comply with 
a congressional subpoena.
    Resolved, That pursuant to 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec.  192 and 194, the Speaker of 
the House of Representatives shall certify the report of the Committee on the 
Judiciary, detailing the refusal of Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General, U.S. 
Department of Justice, to produce documents, records, and materials to the 
Committee on the Judiciary as directed by subpoena, to the United States 
Attorney for the District of Columbia, to the end that Attorney General Merrick 
B. Garland be proceeded against in the manner and form provided by law.
    Resolved,  That the Speaker of the House shall otherwise take all 
appropriate action to enforce the subpoena.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsDevelopment of low cost custom hybrid microcircuit technologySelected potentially low cost, alternate packaging and interconnection techniques were developed and implemented in the manufacture of specific NASA/MSFC hardware, and the actual cost savings achieved by their use. The hardware chosen as the test bed for this evaluation ws the hybrids and modules manufactured by Rockwell International fo the MSFC Flight Accelerometer Safety Cut-Off System (FASCOS). Three potentially low cost packaging and interconnection alternates were selected for evaluation. This study was performed in three phases: hardware fabrication and testing, cost comparison, and reliability evaluation.Document ID19840019909Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsPerkins, K. L.*(Rockwell International Corp. Anaheim, CA, United States)*Licari, J. J.*(Rockwell International Corp. Anaheim, CA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 4, 2013Publication DateAugust 1, 1981Subject CategoryElectronics And Electrical EngineeringReport/Patent NumberNASA-CR-161977NAS 1.26:161977Accession Number84N27978Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAS8-33385Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19840019909.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
#### § 2800.1 Purpose.

To establish procedures and provide guidance for the security of classified information and material within the Office of the Vice President.
Exhibit 32

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with the Annual Report of Winthrop Partners 80 Limited
Partnership (the "Partnership"), on Form 10-KSB for the annual period ended
December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the date
indicated below, hereby certifies 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
and 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 Partnership.


Date: March 29, 2005                                     /s/ Michael L. Ashner
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         Michael L. Ashner
                                                         Chief Executive Officer


Date: March 29, 2005                                     /s/ Thomas Staples
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         Thomas Staples
                                                         Chief Financial Officer


                                       34
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


C\_2023323EN.01001201.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 13.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 323/12 |

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.11267 – SMRP / DR SCHNEIDER GROUP)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2023/C 323/07)

1.

On 31 August 2023, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(1)](#ntr1-C_2023323EN.01001201-E0001).

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Samvardhana Motherson Automotive Systems Group B.V. (‘SMRP’, the Netherlands), belonging to Samvardhana Motherson International Limited (‘Motherson Group’, India), |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Dr. Schneider Group’s (Germany) automotive business. |

SMRP will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of Dr. Schneider Group’s automotive business.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares and assets.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are the following:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Motherson Group is a global producer and supplier of automotive components, |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Dr. Schneider Group’s automotive business supplies interior components and systems mainly used in passenger vehicles. |

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(2)](#ntr2-C_2023323EN.01001201-E0002) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

4.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.11267 – SMRP / DR SCHNEIDER GROUP

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email or by post. Please use the contact details below:

Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu

Postal address:

| |
| --- |
| European Commission |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

---

[(1)](#ntc1-C_2023323EN.01001201-E0001)  
[OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2004_024_R_TOC) (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

[(2)](#ntc2-C_2023323EN.01001201-E0002)  
[OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOC_2013_366_R_TOC).

---
(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 R.H. Donnelley
Corporation as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.
 /s/ David C. Swanson

David C. Swanson
    
    /s/ Steven M. Blondy

Steven M. BlondyChairman and Chief Executive Officer
    
    Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial OfficerMay 8, 2009
    
    May 8, 2009