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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-26-1997
<CASH>                                           6,954
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   73,749
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,083
<INVENTORY>                                     90,840
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               189,230
<PP&E>                                         451,282
<DEPRECIATION>                                 285,522
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 382,743
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           81,439
<BONDS>                                         17,905
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        22,158
<OTHER-SE>                                     211,321
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   382,743
<SALES>                                        322,135
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               322,135
<CGS>                                          239,430
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  269,094
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   418
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   181
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 382
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 25,060
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,092
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             17,968
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    17,968
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.08
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION

(pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)



In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 of Boeing Capital Corporation (the
Company) as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report) and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Russell
A. Evans, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify that:



|(1) |  | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|--- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                  |  |                                           
|----------------- |  | ------------------------------------------
|February 15, 2008 |  | /s/ RUSSELL A. EVANS                      
|                  |  | Russell A. Evans                          
|                  |  | Vice President and Chief Financial Officer



46
<PAGE>

                               EXHIBIT 4.1

                     CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

      We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-92229) pertaining to the 1993 Stock Option Plan
and the 1996 Employee Stock Purchase Plan of Biovail Corporation of our
report dated February 29, 2000, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of Biovail Corporation included in the Annual Report (Form 20-F)
for the year ended December 31, 1999.

Toronto, Canada                                       /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP
April 19, 2000                                        Chartered Accountants
#### 209.407 Suspension.
#### Miller *v.*Miller.

January 18, 1913.

Eisii, C. J.

1. “Cruel treatment” within the meaning of Civil Code, § 2946, which provides that such treatment shall be ground for divorce, is the wilful infliction of pain, bodily or mental, upon the complaining, party, such as reasonably justifies an apprehension of damage -to life, limb or health. *Stoner*v. *Stoner,*134 *Ga.*368 (67 S. E. 1030).

*(a)*Accordingly, where upon the trial of an action for divorce there was evidence to the effect that the libelant, being a woman undergoing “the change of life,” was during such time falsely and repeatedly charged by the defendant, and in her presence, with incestuous adultery with her brother, and these charges produced such mental pain to the libelant as to cause her to become so ill as to make it necessary to keep her in bed, at times for as long as two weeks, and there was no evidence of condonation on her part, the jury were authorized to find a verdict for a total divorce in behalf of the libelant on the ground of cruel treatment.

2. On the trial of a divorce ease, where the defendant merely resisted the granting of a divorce to the libelant, it is’ not cause for the grant of a new trial on behalf of the defendant that the verdict found generally in favor of the libelant for a total divorce, without in express terms referring to the status or disabilities of the defendant.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

*283Libel for divorce. Before Judge Maddox. 1 Floyd superior court. January 2, 1912.

*Copeland, Hamilton & Hutchens*and *W. M. Henry,*for plaintiff in error. *W. E. Mann*and *Maddox & Boyal,*contra.
1

From: "Szabo, Aaron" <Aaron_L_Szabo@omb.eop.gov>

Date: May 21, 2015 at 7:10:49 PM EDT

To: "Brachtl, Megan" <Brachtl.Megan@epa.gov>

Subject: RE: EPA SSM SIP: final action ‐‐ edits since 04‐30‐15 version of draft final rule

Megan,

Reviewers have no additional comments based on the revised redline‐strikeout version provided within

the previous email.  Please upload a clean version of this draft final rule to ROCIS.  Thank you very much

for your assistance.

From: Brachtl, Megan [mailto:Brachtl.Megan@epa.gov]  

Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 5:12 PM

To: Szabo, Aaron

Subject: EPA SSM SIP: final action ‐‐ edits since 04‐30‐15 version of draft final rule

Hi Aaron – The attached redline‐strikeout version of this draft final action reflects edits made to the

package since EPA submitted a revised version to OMB on 04‐30‐15 during the interagency review

period.

Best regards,

Megan

Megan V. Brachtl, Group Leader

State and Local Programs Group

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(919) 541‐2648

brachtl.megan@epa.gov
#### 225.301 Contractor personnel in a designated operational area or supporting a diplomatic or consular mission outside the United States.
#### In the Matter of Samuel Hopkins, Respondent, v J. Henry Smith et al., Appellants.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered December 9, 1977, granting the petition to the extent of remanding to respondents for consideration and imposition of a penalty less than dismissal, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of reducing the penalty imposed to suspension for three years, without pay, *nunc pro tunc,*to January 9, 1976, and otherwise affirmed, without costs or disbursements. A Justice of this court has granted leave, *nunc pro tunc,*to take an appeal from the order entered December 9, 1977 (CPLR 5701, subd [b], par 1; subd [c]; *Matter of Glazer v Board of Trustees of Police Pension Fund, Art.*IT, *of Police Dept, of City of N. Y.,*66 AD2d 759). Petitioner had been found guilty of certain charges and was dismissed from his position as supervising special officer of Human Resources Administration police operations. We have on a previous appeal reviewed and modified the findings of guilt of the charges leveled against the petitioner *(Matter of Hopkins v Smith,*58 AD2d 325) and *743remanded the matter for imposition of an appropriate penalty in view of the modification. On remand, the respondents again imposed the penalty of dismissal. On this appeal, we are called upon to review the propriety of the sanction imposed. We have taken into consideration petitioner’s 19 years of satisfactory service and the loss of retirement benefits upon dismissal and weighed it against the offense committed; namely, failure to return a confidential report forthwith and "losing” the envelope which would contain information as to who sent the confidential report to the petitioner *(Matter of Hopkins v Smith,*58 AD2d 325, 326, *supra).*We find that the punishment of dismissal, under these circumstances, was so disproportionate to the offense as to shock one’s sense of fairness *(Matter of Pell v Board of Educ.,*34 NY2d 222), and have accordingly modified the sanction imposed. Concur —Kupferman, J. P., Birns, Lane, Sandler and Sullivan, JJ.
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida 

Opinion filed July 3, 2024.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D24-0339

Lower Tribunal No. 22-13233

________________

Andrew Byers, etc., et al.,

Petitioners,

vs.

Digital Radiology, Inc., etc., et al.,

Respondents.

A Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, 

Vivianne del Rio, Judge.

KSW Legal, P.A., and Kraig S. Weiss (Coral Springs), for petitioners.

Sutton Pomares Law Group, P.A., and John R. Sutton, for 

respondents.

Before LOGUE, C.J., and EMAS and SCALES, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.
2

Petitioners1 seek certiorari review of a February 13, 2024 discovery 

order denying Petitioners’ motion for a protective order and compelling 

Petitioners to provide discovery to Respondent Douglas Hornsby that is 

relevant to Respondents’2 underlying claim for an accounting of Plantation 

Open MRI, LLC (“Plantation”). See Picerne Dev. Corp. of Fla. v. Tasca & 

Rotelli, 635 So. 2d 149, 150 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (“A writ of certiorari is the 

proper remedy for a premature discovery order in a suit for an accounting.”).

Petitioners claim the discovery order is premature because the trial court has 

not yet adjudicated Petitioners’ August 8, 2023 motion to dismiss the 

operative amended complaint, wherein Petitioners challenge Hornsby’s 

standing to seek an accounting.

“It is well established that discovery as to an accounting must be 

deferred until the preliminary issue of the right to an accounting is settled.” 

Arthur Finnieston, Inc. v. Pratt, 673 So. 2d 560, 562 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) 

(quoting Drs. Weiland, Keiser, Jones, Shufflebarger, Cooper, P.A. v. Tindall, 

372 So. 2d 505, 506 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)); see also G.H. Crawford Co. Fin. 

1 Andrew Byers, individually, and/or Member Manager of Plantation Open 

MRI, LLC, and/or Andrew Byers Enterprises, LLC Member and/or POM 

Open MRI Radiology, LLC.

2 Digital Radiology Inc. as a Minority Member of Plantation Open MRI, LLC 

and Douglas Hornsby. 
3

Servs. v. Goch, 292 So. 2d 54, 55 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974) (same). We decline 

Respondents’ invitation to effectively adjudicate Petitioners’ pending August 

8, 2023 dismissal motion in the first instance and, consistent with Picerne 

Development Corp. of Florida, we grant the petition and quash the 

challenged discovery order.

Petition granted; order quashed.
III 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 101 

Providing for members on the part of the Senate of the Joint Committee 

on Printing and the Joint Committee of Congress on the Library. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 28, 2017 

Mr. SHELBY (for himself and Ms. KLOBUCHAR) submitted the following 

resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for members on the part of the Senate of the 

Joint Committee on Printing and the Joint Committee 

of Congress on the Library. 

1 Resolved, That the following named Members be, and 

2 they are hereby, elected members of the following joint 

3 committees of Congress: 

4 JOINT COMMITTEE ON PRINTING: Mr. Shelby, Mr. 

5 Roberts, Mr. Wicker, Ms. Klobuchar, and Mr. Udall. 

6 JOINT COMMITTEE OF CONGRESS ON THE LIBRARY: 

7 Mr. Shelby, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Blunt, Ms. Klobuchar, and 

8 Mr. Leahy. 

Æ 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                         4347985
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    91154
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               4492269
<PP&E>                                          203037
<DEPRECIATION>                                   35824
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                11772009
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          3325929
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       2352554
<OTHER-SE>                                     5473472
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  11772009
<SALES>                                       11482040
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              11482040
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  9019261
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               24000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                2475693
<INCOME-TAX>                                   1020000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            1455693
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1455693
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .12
        

</TABLE>
##### 



MDI, Inc.  Subsidiaries as of December 31, 2006
 Name of Company
    
    Jurisdiction
    
    
    StatusUnited StatesABM Data Systems, Inc.
    
    Texas
    
    ActiveMonitor Dynamics, Inc.
    
    California
    
    InactiveAmerican Building Control GP, Inc.
    
    Delaware
    
    ActiveAmerican Building Control LP, Inc.
    
    Delaware
    
    ActiveMDI Operating, L.P.
    
    Texas
    
    ActiveGlobal Systems Solutions, Inc.
    
    Delaware
    
    ActiveForeignMDI S.A.
    
    Switzerland
    
    InactiveMDI France, S.A.
    
    France
    
    InactiveMDI, Inc.  Subsidiaries as of March 9, 2007United StatesABM Data Systems, Inc.
    
    Texas
    
    ActiveMonitor Dynamics, Inc.
    
    California
    
    InactiveGlobal Systems Solutions, Inc.
    
    Delaware
    
    ActiveForeignMDI S.A.
    
    Switzerland
    
    InactiveMDI France, S.A.
    
    France
    
    Inactive
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 3- 28 37

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ W ad e Ch arl es Heid en
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.
Unk no wn Dep ut y

Cle rk ; Ham il to n C ou nt y Cle rk s Off

ic e; Ham il to n C ou nt y , Iowa
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa - Ft. Do dg e

__ __ __ __ __ __ Su bm it te d: Octo be r 22 , 20 13 Fi le d: Octo be r 23 , 20 13 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re SM ITH, BOW MAN, an d GRUENDER, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.

Ch arl es Heid en , a fed eral in m at e, ap pe al s fro m an or de r of th e Dis tri ct Co ur t 1 di sm is si ng hi s pr o se co m pl ai nt pr io r to se rv ic e un de r 28 U.S.C. § 19 15 (e)( 2) (B).

The Hon or ab le Mar k W

. Ben ne tt , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1 Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa

.Heid en al le ge d th at a st at e-co ur t de pu ty cl erk im pr op erl y si gn e d a d o c um en t on be ha lf of a st at e-co ur t jud ge , an d th at , as a co ns eq ue nc e, Heid en rece iv ed an in va li d

co nv ic ti on an d se nt en ce in fed er a l co ur t. Upo n care fu l de no vo rev ie w, s ee Mo or e
v. Si m s, 20 0 F.3 d 11 70 , 11 71 (8 th Ci r. 20 00 ) (p er cu ria m ) (n ot in g de no vo rev ie w of § 1 9 1 5 ( e )(2 )(B) di sm is sa ls ), we ag ree wit h th e Dis tri ct Co ur t th at Heid en fai le d to st at e a cl ai m up on whi ch rel ie f co ul d be gr an te d, se e Bel l Atl

. Co rp

. v. Twom bl y , 55 0 U.S. 54 4, 55 5, 57 0 (2 00 7) (n ot in g th at a pl ai nt iff ’s ob li ga ti on to pr ov id e gr ou nd s fo r rel ie f req ui res m or e th an la be ls an d co nc lu si on s; a co m pl ai nt fai ls to s t a t e a c l ai m up on whi ch rel ie f can be gra nt ed if it do es no t pl ead su ffi ci en t fact s to st at e a cl ai m to rel ie f th at is pl au si bl e o n i ts face ). Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm

. See 8t h Cir. R. 47 B.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-2

-
#### 1952.104 Procedures for modifying and completing provisions and clauses.

IAAR provisions and clauses shall not be modified (see FAR 1952.101(a) unless authorized by the Director, Office of Contracts, and when so authorized, contracting officers must comply with the procedures in FAR 1952.104.
#### 204.1701 Definitions.

As used in this subpart—

*First-tier subcontract* means a subcontract awarded directly by the contractor for the purpose of acquiring services for performance of a prime contract. It does not include the contractor's supplier agreements with vendors, such as long-term arrangements for materials or supplies or services that benefit multiple contracts and/or the costs of which are normally applied to a contractor's general and administrative expenses or indirect costs.
----

|                                           |   | Year      EndedDecember      31, 2008 |   |
|------------------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|                                           |   |                                  |   |   |   |   |
|                                           |   | Shares                                |   |   | Earnings      Per Share |   |
|                                           |   | (In      Thousands)                   |   |
|                                           |   |                                  |   |   |   |   |
| Basic      Weighted Average Shares Outstanding |   |                                  | 7,199  |   |   | $ | 0.28 |   |
|                                           |   |                                  |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Diluted                                        |   |                                  |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Average      Shares Outstanding                |   |                                  |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Common      Stock Equivalents                  |   |                                  | -      |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                           |   |                                  |   |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                           |   |                                  | 7,199  |   |   | $ | 0.28 |   |

|                                           |   | Year      EndedDecember      31, 2007 |   |
|------------------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|                                           |   |                                  |   |   |   |   |
| Basic      Weighted Average Shares Outstanding |   |                                  | 7,189  |   |   | $ | 1.19 |   |
|                                           |   |                                  |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Diluted                                        |   |                                  |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Average      Shares Outstanding                |   |                                  | 7,189  |   |   |   |   |   |
| Common      Stock Equivalents                  |   |                                  | 8      |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                           |   |                                  |   |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                           |   |                                  | 7,197  |   |   | $ | 1.19 |   |

----
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Richard Rivera, Appellant.

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, rendered February 24, 1977, convicting defendant, on his plea of guilty, of attempted robbery in the third degree and sentencing him as a second felony offender to a term of imprisonment of one and one-half to three years, is unanimously affirmed. The case is remitted to the Supreme Court, New York County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (subd 5). The only issue on this appeal is whether the court should have suppressed a wallet seized from defendant by a police officer on the ground that the search of the defendant was unlawful. When the police officer saw two men being chased by two "block watchers” as the two men ran from the scene of a "commotion,” and the defendant, identified as one of the two men, furtively tried to get away from the police, the police were justified in stopping and detaining the defendant for questioning. A minute or two later the victim of the robbery appeared and said he had just been robbed at the scene of the "commotion” — i.e., the "commotion” was the robbery — by two men who fled when he yelled. At this point, we find that the police had probable cause to believe that the two fleeing men, including the defendant, had committed the robbery, and thus they had probable cause to arrest, despite the inability of the victim to make an identification. Probable cause to arrest and to search need not rise to the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt or even a prima facie case. It is enough that apparently reliable information comes to the police on the basis of which the police officer reasonably believes that the defendant has probably committed a crime. Concur— Evans, J. P., Sandler, Sullivan, Lane and Silverman, JJ.
#### ROTH, Appellant, v. ARNEMANN et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

October 23, 1903.)

Action by Frederick Roth against Martin Arnemann and others.

A. P. Wagener, for appellant.

J. Steiner, for respondents.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.