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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                             137
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,165
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      7,642
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                11,370
<PP&E>                                           5,366
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,086
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  15,899
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,206
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        13,052
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,641
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    15,899
<SALES>                                         14,064
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                            9,768
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,744
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,407)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (943)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,464)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.15)


</TABLE>
#### Marion Langdon et al., Respondents, *v.*The Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of the City of New York, Appellant.

This case was argued and decided with *Langdon*v. *Mayor, etc. (ante,*p. 129).
#### In the Matter of John H. Fisher, an Attorney, Respondent. Joint Bar Association Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District, Petitioner.

Second Department,

April 16, 1979

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Francis F. Doran (John F. McHale, Jr.,*of counsel), for petitioner.

*John H. Fisher,*respondent *pro se.*

OPINION OF THE COURT

*Per Curiam.*

The respondent was admitted to practice by this court on April 4, 1956. In this proceeding to discipline him for profes*313sional misconduct, the petitioner moves to confirm the report of the Justice of the Supreme Court to whom the issues were referred for hearing and report.

Charge one alleges that the respondent neglected the prosecution of a medical malpractice action in which he was representing the plaintiff, resulting in a dismissal of the action, and that he failed to advise his client of the true status of the action notwithstanding numerous inquiries.

Charge two alleges that the respondent neglected the prosecution of a personal injury action in which he represented the plaintiff, with the result that the action was barred by the expiration of the Statute of Limitations.

The reporting Justice found that both charges were sustained in their entirety.

After reviewing all of the evidence we are in full accord with the findings of the reporting Justice. Accordingly, the petitioner’s motion to confirm the report is granted. It is the opinion of this court that the respondent should be, and he hereby is, censured for his misconduct.

Mollen, P. J., Hopkins, Damiani, Titone and Martuscello, JJ., concur.
Consent of Independent Accountants

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the
Prospectus constituting part of the Registration Statements on
Form S-3, as amended (Nos. 33-14741, 33-14743, 33-20183 and 33-
51639) and in the Registration Statements on Form S-8, as amended
(Nos. 2-87550, 2-96157, 33-9827, 33-14742, 33-37312, 33-22378, 
33-41077, 33-69174, 33-63013 and 33-63015) of Biogen, Inc. and
its subsidiaries of our report dated January 23, 1996 appearing
in the 1995 Annual Report to Shareholders which is incorporated
in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.  




Price Waterhouse LLP
Boston, Massachusetts
February 1, 1996
### MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04

- 10

- 00 801

- CR

IN RE David SALINAS

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: November 24, 2010

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED AS MOOT

On November 3, 2010, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus, complaining of the

trial court’s failure to rule on his “Motion for Judgment and Sentence Nunc Pro Tunc to Correct

Clerical Error in Judgment.” However, on November 8, 2010, the trial court signed an order

denying relator’s motion. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED AS

MOOT. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 1991

- CR

- 0208 , styled State of Texas v. David Salinas

, in the 187 th

Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Raymond Angelini presiding.
# C_2018033EN.01000501.xml

| 30.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 33/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 33/5

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

29 January 2018

(2018/C 33/06)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2379 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 134,75 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4427 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,87940 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,7823 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,1563 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,5548 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,297 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 309,34 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1436 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,6530 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 4,6755 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5302 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5269 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,6783 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6881 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,6220 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 324,74 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 14,8255 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,8383 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4218 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 586,62 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,8116 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 63,642 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 69,8633 |
| THB | Thai baht | 38,920 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,9209 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 23,0316 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 78,7055 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2379

JPY

Japanese yen

134,75

DKK

Danish krone

7,4427

GBP

Pound sterling

0,87940

SEK

Swedish krona

9,7823

CHF

Swiss franc

1,1563

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,5548

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,297

HUF

Hungarian forint

309,34

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1436

RON

Romanian leu

4,6530

TRY

Turkish lira

4,6755

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5302

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5269

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,6783

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6881

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,6220

KRW

South Korean won

1 324,74

ZAR

South African rand

14,8255

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,8383

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4218

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 586,62

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,8116

PHP

Philippine peso

63,642

RUB

Russian rouble

69,8633

THB

Thai baht

38,920

BRL

Brazilian real

3,9209

MXN

Mexican peso

23,0316

INR

Indian rupee

78,7055

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
#### 2415.308 Source selection decision.

After receipt and evaluation of final proposal revisions, the TEP shall document its selection recommendation(s) in a final written report. The final report shall include sufficient information to support the recommendation(s) made, appropriate to the source selection approach and type and complexity of the acquisition.

[64 FR 46096, Aug. 23, 1999]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Sidney Bronsky, Appellant.

Motion by defendant for reargument of his appeal from judgment of conviction entered in November, 1948, and for assignment of counsel for such purpose. Motion denied. Upon the defendant’s appeal, we affirmed the judgment on October 24, 1949 *(People*v. *Bronsky,*275 App. Div. *9821060). On this motion for reargumcnt defendant seeks to raise only the question of the excessiveness of his sentence. That question e.ould and should have been raised on the original appeal. It may not be. tested now, either by way of reargument or *coram nobis.*Defendant cannot, in this indirect manner, obtain a second review of the 1948 judgment of conviction. Beldoek, P. J., Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
Exhibit (32)
 CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT
  (1)
    
    the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2010 (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(2)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  /s/ Preston D. Pinkett III(Signature)Chief Executive Officer
and President CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT
  (1)
    
    the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2010 (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(2)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  /s/
Edward R. Wright(Signature)Edward R. Wright
Chief Financial Officer
and Senior Vice President
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

I, David R. Brown, certifythat:

 

1.I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of National MercantileBancorp;

 

2.Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer asof, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.The small business issuer’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer andhave:

 

(a)Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the small business issuer, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b)Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

(c)Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the small businessissuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscalquarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and

 

5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee ofthe small business issuer’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):

 

(a)All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the small business issuer’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and

 

(b)Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal controlover financial reporting.

 

 
| Date:  | March 29,  2004 |   | /s/  DAVID R. BROWN |   |
|--------|---------------------------|--------|--------------------------|--------|
|   | David R.  Brown           |
|   | Chief  Financial Officer  |

 

----
Case: 1:12-cv-05746 Document #: 139-1 Filed: 06/28/13 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:1533
Case: 1:12-cv-05746 Document #: 139-1 Filed: 06/28/13 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:1534
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 227 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 227

  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
abolish the electoral college and to provide for the direct election of 
         the President and Vice President of the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 12, 2024

   Mr. Cohen (for himself, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, and Ms. Brownley) 
  submitted the following joint resolution; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
abolish the electoral college and to provide for the direct election of 
         the President and Vice President of the United States.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled   (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:

                              ``Article--

    ``Section 1. The President and Vice President shall be elected by 
the people of the several States and the district constituting the seat 
of government of the United States.
    ``Section 2. Each voter shall cast a single vote for two persons 
who have consented to the joining of their names as candidates for 
President and Vice President.
    ``Section 3. The pair of candidates having the greatest number of 
votes for President and Vice President shall be elected.
    ``Section 4. The Congress may by law provide for the case of the 
death or any other disqualification of any candidate for President or 
Vice President before the day on which the President-elect or Vice 
President-elect has been chosen; and for the case of a tie in any 
election.
    ``Section 5. This article shall take effect one year after the 
first day of January following ratification.''.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

SHEET METAL WORKERS LOCAL 265 )

WELFARE FUND, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, ) CIVIL ACTION

)

vs. ) NO. 12 C 4644

)

EVEN - TEMP, INCORPORATED, ) JUDGE ELAINE E. BUCKLO

an Illinois corporation, )

)

Defendant. )

MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT AND JUDGMENT

NOWCOME Plaintiffs, bytheir attorneys, and move for entryof judgment by default against

Defendant, EVEN - TEMP, INCORPORATED, an Illinois corporation, in the total amount of

$2,595.36, plus Plaintiffs’ court costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees in the amount of $892.00. 

On June 18, 2012, the Summons and Complaint was served on the Registered Agent by

tendering a copy of said documents to him personally at his place of business (a copy of the

Summons and Affidavit of Service is attached hereto). Therefore, Defendant’s answer was due on

July 9, 2012. As Defendant has failed to timely answer the Complaint, Plaintiffs respectfully request

entry of default and judgment.

/s/ Cecilia M. Scanlon 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned, an attorney of record, hereby certifies that she electronically filed the

foregoing document (Motion) with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, and further

certifies that I have mailed the above-referenced document by United States Mail to the following

non-CM/ECF participants on or before the hour of 5:00 p.m. this 5th day of September 2012:

Mr. Steven A. Klem, Registered Agent

Even - Temp, Incorporated

134 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 1810

Chicago, IL 60602-1154

Mr. Anthony Pendola, President

Even - Temp, Incorporated

6304 Sondra Court

Plainfield, IL 60586

/s/ Cecilia M. Scanlon 

Cecilia M. Scanlon

Attorney for Plaintiffs

BAUM SIGMAN AUERBACH & NEUMAN, LTD.

200 West Adams Street, Suite 2200

Chicago, IL 60606-5231

Bar No.: 6288574

Telephone: (312) 236-4316

Facsimile: (312) 236-0241

E-Mail: cscanlon@baumsigman.com

I:\265J\Even Temp\#23990\motion.cms.df.wpd
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. John L. Chandler, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Upon examination of the complainant the District Attorney elicited testimony that on the night after the crime she had examined certain photographs at the police station. This was improper and the District Attorney should have refrained from any interrogation which would produce this information at this stage of the trial. The identification of the defendant was not at issue and the complainant later identified the defendant in the courtroom. No effort was made by defendant to deny or contradict this identification. This testimony could in no sense be admitted under the provisions of section 393-b of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the error in offering this was twofold, for it was an effort to identify from photographs when identification was not at issue *(People*V. *Cioffi,*1 N Y 2d 70; *People*v. *Hagedorny,*272 App. Div. 830) and further the information that the photographs'were at the police station was an attack upon the character of the defendant before he had put it in issue by offering evidence of his good character *(People*v. *Zackowitz,*254 N. Y. 192, 197; 1 Wigmore, Evidence [3d ed.], § 55, p. 449; § 192, p. 641). The Trial Judge quickly attempted to cure the prejudicial effect of this testimony by an instruettion to the jury that it should be disregarded and further devoted a substantial part of his charge to an effort to eradicate any possible influence this testimony might have, and went so far as to charge the jurors that they should return a verdict of not guilty if they could not remove the effect of this testimony from their minds. The prosecution should be meticulous in avoiding the use of this type of testimony in situations like the case at bar. The proof of guilt of the defendant is so overwhelming, however, and the instructions of the court to dispel the force of this testimony so explicit that we believe that the error did not affect the substantial rights of the defendant and the conviction should therefore be affirmed. (Code Crim. Pro., § 542.) (Appeal from judgment of Erie County Court convicting defendant of grand larceny, first degree.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Halpern and MeClusky, JJ.
## Timeline

Application available: September 16, 2019Application deadline: October 28, 2019

## Federal Register Notice

-  Federal Register

## Current Application

The  application for the EAI Program is available at the link below.  For any additional information please see  Application Contact information.  

- Emergency Assistance to Institutions of Higher Education Program (EAI) Application Package:   PDF  (843K)  

If you use a TDD, call the FRS, toll-free, at 1-800-877-8339.

## Application Contact

Beatriz Ceja, (202) 453-6239
**Mailing Address:**U.S. Department of Education, OPEHigher Education Programs, Institutional ServiceEmergency Assistance to Institutions of Higher Education Program 400 Maryland Avenue, S.W.Mail Stop:  LBJ 251-03Washington, DC 20202E-mail: EAIProgram@ed.gov

Institutional Service Home
  Last Modified: 09/19/2019
**Exhibit 99.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICEROR**

**PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

 

In connectionwith the Annual Report, on Form 10-K, of Sun Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”), forthe period ending December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission (the “Report”), I, Robert J. McCormack, President and ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as added by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

2.                                       Tomy knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany as of and for the periods covered by the Report.

 

 
|   |           |   | /s/ Robert  J. McCormack                 |
|--------|----------------|--------|------------------------------------------|
|   |           |   | President  & Chief Executive Officer |
|   |           |   |                                     |
| Date:  | March 21, 2003 |   |                                     |   |
|        |                |        |                                          |  |

 

----