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

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                       4,757,512
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               43,739,215
<ALLOWANCES>                                 2,401,773
<INVENTORY>                                 49,097,433
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           107,832,204
<PP&E>                                      26,879,627
<DEPRECIATION>                               9,016,169
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             200,350,508
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       28,117,786
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    976,755
<COMMON>                                       149,815
<OTHER-SE>                                 131,536,282
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               200,350,508
<SALES>                                    206,436,552
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           206,436,552
<CGS>                                      138,561,105
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              138,561,105
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            63,093,966
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             3,875,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,964,954
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,958,368
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,285,814
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            672,554
<DISCONTINUED>                                 107,022
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   565,532
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .04


</TABLE>
#### 1552.235-81 Institutional oversight of life sciences dual use research of concern—Representation.

As prescribed in 1535.007(c), insert the following solicitation provision:

# Institutional Oversight of Life Sciences Dual Use Research of Concern—Representation (JUNE 2016)

(a) *Definitions.* As used in this provision—

*Institution* means any government agency (Federal, State, tribal, or local), academic institution, corporation, company, partnership, society, association, firm, sole proprietorship, or other legal entity conducting research.

*Life Sciences research* means a systematic investigation designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge involving living organisms (*e.g.,* microbes, human beings, animals, and plants) and their products, including all disciplines and methodologies of biology such as aerobiology, agricultural science, plant science, animal science, bioinformatics, genomics, proteomics, microbiology, synthetic biology, virology, molecular biology, environmental science, public health, modeling, engineering of living systems, and all applications of the biological sciences. The term is meant to encompass the diverse approaches to understanding life at the level of ecosystems, populations, organisms, organs, tissues, cells, and molecules. Life sciences research does not include routine product testing, quality control, mapping, collection of general-purpose statistics, routine monitoring and evaluation of an operational program, observational studies, and the training of scientific and technical personnel.

(b) *Representation.* By submission of its offer or quotation, the Offeror represents that if it is:

(1) An institution within the United States that conducts or sponsors life sciences research that involves one or more of the agents or toxins listed in section 6.2.1 of the “United States Government Policy for Institutional Oversight of Life Sciences Dual Use Research of Concern” (*iDURC Policy*), even if the research is not supported by United States Government funds; or

(2) An institution outside of the United States that receives funds to conduct or sponsor research that involves one or more of the agents or toxins listed in section 6.2.1 of the *iDURC Policy*; then the Offeror will comply with the *iDURC Policy.*

(c) *Resources.* Information about dual use research in the life sciences, as well as specific details on the *iDURC Policy* can be found on the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services *Dual Use Research of Concern* page: *http://www.phe.gov/s3/dualuse/Pages/default.aspx.*

(End of provision)

[81 FR 24500, Apr. 26, 2016]
#### 205.205 Special situations.

See PGI 205.205 for instructions on the solicitation notice regarding timely definitization of equitable adjustments for change orders under construction contracts.

[88 FR 73235, Oct. 25, 2023]
#### In the Matter of Board of Education, City School District of New Rochelle, Appellant, v. Bernard Associates No. 3, Inc., Respondent.

In a proceeding to stay arbitration, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated April 20, 1960, denying its motion for the stay. Respondent, a contractor, in accordance with an arbitration clause in a building contract with petitioner, has demanded that the parties proceed to arbitration on respondent’s claims for: (1) extras in the sum of $35,000, and (2) damages in an unascertained amount by reason of claimed wrongful acts and neglect of petitioner. Order reversed on the law, without costs, and motion granted to the extent of staying arbitration pending the determination by the court, pursuant to sections 1450 and 1458 of the Civil Practice Act, of the issues: (1) whether the demand for arbitration was timely made as to the claims therein set forth in accordance with the provision of the contract that such demand shall be made within 10 days of receipt of the decision of the architect; and (2) whether the respondent complied with the provisions of section 3813 of the Education Law in the presentation of the claims. The matter is accordingly remitted for the trial and determination of such issues. Under the contract the architect, in the first instance, had comprehensive power to review and determine all claims regarding the work done under the contract. It is also provided therein that notice of demand shall be made within 10 days of receipt of the architect’s decision. The averment of the architect that he had determined all claims and had made his decision thereon with notice thereof to respondent more than 10 days prior to demand for arbitration, is sufficiently factual (in relation to the respondent’s broad general claims) to create an issue of fact as to fulfillment of the condition precedent to arbitration. This question is one for the court and not for arbitration *(Matter of Board, of Educ. (Heckler Elec. Co.],*7 N T 2d 476, 481, 482). Compliance by respondent with the provisions of section 3813 of the Education Law is also an issue for determination by the court. There is no merit to 'petitioner’s contention that a claim for damages for delays caused by it is not within the scope of the arbitration contemplated by the contract. Article 18 of the contract is concerned not with damages but with justification, because of delay, for failure of respondent to complete on the stipulated date. In fact, it is therein expressly provided that the article does not exclude recovery of damages for delay under other provisions in the contract documents. Damages may properly be sought under article 31, which provides for reimbursement where either party suffers damage *“*because of any wrongful act or neglect ” of the other. Nolan, P. J., Beldoek, Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Christ, JJ., concur.
#### PEOPLE ex rel. BARNES, Respondent, v. WOLCOTT, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

November 17, 1903.)

Proceeding by the people, on the relation of Willard A. Barnes, against Floyd D. Wolcott.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with costs. See 60 N. Y. Supp. 862.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 23

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S CONSENT

The Board of Directors
Lasertechnics, Inc.:

The audits referred to in our report dated February 20, 1998, included the
related financial statement schedule as of December 31, 1997 and 1996, and for
each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1997, included in
the Form 10-KSB. The financial statement schedule is the responsibility of the
Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on this
financial statement schedule based on our audits. In our opinion, such financial
statement schedule, when considered in relation to the consolidated financial
statements taken as a whole, presents fairly in all material respects the
information set forth therein.

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements Nos.
33-42214 and 33- 98160 on Form S-8 and No. 333-10665 on Form S-3 of
Lasertechnics, Inc. of our reports dated February 20, 1998, relating to the
consolidated balance sheets of Lasertechnics, Inc. and subsidiaries as of
December 31, 1997 and 1996, and the related consolidated statements of
operations, stockholders' equity and cash flows for each of the years in the
three-year period ended December 31, 1997, and related schedule, which reports
appear in the December 31, 1997, annual report on Form 10-KSB.

Our report dated February 20, 1998 contains an explanatory paragraph that states
that the Company's recurring losses from operations and resulting continued
dependence upon access to additional external financing raise substantial doubt
about the Company's ability to continue as a going concern. The consolidated
financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the
outcome of this uncertainty. Our report also makes reference to a restatement of
the Company's consolidated financial statements for the years ended December 31,
1995 and 1996 to reflect a change in its accounting for beneficial conversion
features related to the issuance of convertible debentures and convertible
preferred stock.


                                                        /s/KPMG Peat Marwick LLP


Dallas, Texas
June 19, 1998
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

)

Thurman Ross ) Case No: 12 C 276

)

v. ) Judge: John W. Darrah

)

Career Education Corp. et al )

)

ORDER

Enter order awarding attorneys’ fees and expenses. Enter order approving plan of distribution of

settlement proceeds.

Date: 5/1/14 /s/ Judge John W. Darrah

Case: 1:12-cv-00276 Document #: 130 Filed: 05/01/14 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:3074
**EXHIBIT 99.2**

 

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

 

**SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

**(18U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**

 

 

Inconnection with the Annual Report of BancTec, Inc, a Delaware corporation (the“Company”), on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2002 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, BrianR. Stone, Senior Vice President and ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to my knowledge:

 

(1) TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

 
| / s /    Brian R. Stone       |   |
|---------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                              |
| Brian R.  Stone                                   |
| Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|                                              |
| April 11,  2003                                   |

 

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company andwill be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

----
### Sargent & 

### Lunc:lyLLC

Jill A. Liska Associate Counsel Tel.: (312) 269·2578 Fax: (312) 2Sg.9731

December 17,2010 

### VIA CERTIFIED MAil RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8 Office of Partnerships and RegulatoryAssistance (8P-AR) 1595Wynkoop Street Denver, Colorado 80202-1129 Attn: Gail Fallon Re: Sargent & Lundy LLC Response to Information Request Under Section 114 of the Clean AirAct Dear Ms. Fallon: On behalfof Sargent & Lundy, L.L.C. (S&L), I am responding to the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) information request under Section 114(a) of the Clean AirAct dated December6, 2010 (Letter) addressed to William DePriest, SeniorVice President, Environmental Services. That Letter requests S&Lto provide certain information about Leland aids Station Unit 2 in Stanton, North Dakota. Although we have not yet received the certified Letter, we received a copy of it from you electronically on December 10, 2010. As you can probably appreciate, an organization ofour size and complexity has a numberofmandatory deadlines that directly coincide with the end ofa calendaryear. The end ofthis year is no different. Additionally, we have determined that many relevant employees and key people outside of S&L have limited schedules in Decemberdue to the holiday season that impact our ability to meet the EPA's proposed deadline often (10) calendar daysfrom receipt ofthe Letter. Because ofthe overwhelming number of S&L's current obligations through the end of the year and the limited availability of key people who will have to be consulted to ensure the preparation and submission ofan appropriate response to the Letter, we ask for a reasonable extension oftime to respond

. Specifically, we ask for an extension until January 7, 2011, which is the end ofthe first full week in January. The additional time is reasonable based upon the apparent nature and scope ofthe information requested and the unique circumstances faced by S&L at this time ofyear.

55 East Monroe Street· Chicago, IL 60603-5780 USA· 312-269-2000Ms. Gail Fallon Page 2 December 17,2010

Thank you for your consideration ofthis matter. Please contact me at ifyou have any questions. Sincerely,



# (J-u..**J~** Associate Counsel Sargent 

### & Lundy, L.L.C.

JAL:gvc Copies cc:Bill DePriest, S&L USEnvironmental12172010
<PAGE>   1




                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

<TABLE>
                                COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PER COMMON AND
                                            COMMON EQUIVALENT SHARE
<CAPTION>



                                                                      Fiscal years ended September 30,
                                                            ---------------------------------------------------
                                                                1996                1995                1994
                                                            ---------------------------------------------------
<S>                                                         <C>                 <C>                <C>         
PRIMARY
     Average common shares outstanding                       6,794,662           6,747,715           6,743,567
     Net effect of dilutive stock options - based on
      the treasury stock method using average market
      price                                                    157,747              29,801                  --
                                                            ---------------------------------------------------
    Total                                                    6,952,409           6,777,516           6,743,567
     Net income (loss)                                      $5,685,000          $1,399,000         $(1,452,000)
     Per share amount                                       $     0.82          $     0.21         $     (0.22)
                                                            ===================================================

FULLY DILUTED
     Average common shares outstanding                       6,794,662           6,747,715           6,743,567
     Net effect of dilutive stock options - based on
      the treasury stock method using the quarter-
      end market price, if higher than average                 158,757              29,801                  --
      market price
                                                            ---------------------------------------------------
     Total                                                   6,953,419           6,777,516           6,743,567
     Net income (loss)                                      $5,685,000          $1,399,000         $(1,452,000)
     Per share amount                                       $     0.82          $     0.21         $     (0.22)
                                                            ===================================================
</TABLE>






                                     PAGE 37
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Dominick San Marco, Respondent.

-In a filiation proceeding, the complainant appeals from a final order of the Children’s Court, Westchester County, dated May 1, 1959, adjudging that defendant is not the father of the child born to complainant August 10, 1957. Order affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Nolan, P. J., Beldoek, Ughetta, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.
#### 1401.603-1 General.

BPCs are authorized to select and appoint COs and terminate their appointment as prescribed in the Department's Certificate of Appointment (COA) Manual. Copies of the manual may be obtained at *http://www.doi.gov/pam/Acqworkfor.html.*
#### Bertha Aberman et al. v. Leo Pollack.

Motion for stay granted on condition that the appellant procures the record on appeal and appellant’s points to be served and filed on or before August 25, 1960, with notice of argument for September 6,1960, said appeal to be argued or submitted when reached. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente and Bergan, JJ.
15.210 Forms. Prescribed forms are not required to prepare solicitations described in this part. The following forms may be used at the discretion of the contracting officer: ( a ) Standard Form 33, Solicitation, Offer, and Award, and Optional Form 308, Solicitation and Offer—Negotiated Acquisition, may be used to issue RFPs and RFIs.
( b ) Standard Form 30, Amendment of Solicitation/Modification of Contract, and Optional Form 309, Amendment of Solicitation, may be used to amend solicitations of negotiated contracts.
( c ) Optional Form 17, Offer Label, may be furnished with each request for proposal.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

GRADY ROBERTS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D18-637

[October 18, 2018]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. 

Lucie County; Steven J. Levin, Judge; L.T. Case No. 562016CF003341.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Peggy Natale, Assistant Public 

Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Mark J. Hamel, 

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, LEVINE and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Luther Bennett, Appellant.

Motion granted and time for argument of appeal enlarged to include October 1960 Term of court, on condition that appellant’s typewritten brief is filed and served on or before September 29, 1960. Respondent is directed to file and serve brief on or before October 6, 1960.
1519.501 Review of acquisitions. ( a ) If no Small Business Administration (SBA) representative is available, the Small Business Specialist (SBS) shall initiate recommendations to the contracting officer for small business set-asides with respect to individual acquisitions or classes of acquisitions or portions thereof.
( b ) When the SBS has recommended that all, or a portion, of an individual acquisition or class of acquisitions be set aside for small business, the contracting officer shall: ( 1 ) Promptly concur in the recommendation; or
( 2 ) Promptly disapprove the recommendation, stating in writing the reasons for disapproval. If the contracting officer disapproves the recommendation of the SBS, the SBS may appeal to the appropriate appointing authority, whose decision shall be final.
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 32.1
                      18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION


I hereby certify 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 my knowledge and
belief, that the accompanying Form 10-KSB/A of Spectrum Laboratories, Inc., (the
"Company") for the annual period ended December 25, 2004 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 the information contained in this Form
10-KSB/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.

Dated: September 19, 2005



/s/ Roy T. Eddleman
----------------------------
Roy T. Eddleman
Chief Executive Officer
Spectrum Laboratories, Inc.
#### In the Matter of Susan Silverglad Jewish Child Care Association of New York, Appellant, Mollie Lewis et al., Respondents.

Order, entered on June 20, 1962, unanimously affirmed, without costs. The order of this court entered on June 20, 1963 is vacated. No opinion. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Raibin, McNally, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 19, 2018

No. 04-18-00837-CV

Debra BARRIENTOS,

Appellant

v.

HEB GROCERY COMPANY, L.P., U.S Security Associates, Inc., Universal Protection 

Service, L.P. D/B/A/ Universal Protection Service; and G.T. Sirizzotti, LTD,

Appellees

From the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016-CI-08748

Honorable David A. Canales, Judge Presiding

ORDER

This appeal is DISMISSED. We order that appellees recover all costs they incurred related 

to this appeal.

It is so ORDERED on December 19, 2018.

_____________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 19th day of December, 2018.

_____________________________

Keith E. Hottle, Clerk of Court
#### 1803.104 Procurement integrity.
U.S. Department of Education

Negotiated Rulemaking

Potomac Center Plaza Auditorium

550 12th Street, SW.

Washington, DC 20202

Gainful Employment

Session 3

March 12-15, 2018

9:00am – 5:00pm

Draft Agenda

 Welcome

 Review of Session 2 Meeting Summary

 Logistics and Announcements

 Agenda Review

 Daily A.M. Comments

o Negotiators/Alternates – Introductions and Any Comments

o Public

 Review Department Proposed Regulatory Language

o Issue #2 – D/E Rates

o Issue #3 – Debt Calculations

o Issue #4 – Sanctions

o Issue #5 – Alternate Earnings Appeals

o Issue #6 – Program Disclosures

o Issue #7 – Reporting Requirements

o Issue #8 – Certification Requirements

o Technical and Conforming Changes

o Issue #1 – Scope and Purpose

Overview of Regulation Development Process after Negotiations
 Daily P.M. Comments

o Negotiators/Alternates

 Review Next Steps

Regulatory Text

Meeting Summary

Preamble

Other

Public Comment

Appreciation to All