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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1996
<CASH>                                         332,442
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  393,925
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               737,208
<PP&E>                                       3,000,886
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,107,769
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,438,673
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          300,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        73,372
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,107,769
<SALES>                                        330,663
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               349,630
<CGS>                                          152,062
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  429,944
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (80,314)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (80,314)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**Consent of Independent Certified PublicAccountants**

 

PracticeWorks, Inc. 

Atlanta, Georgia 

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No. 333-85106) on Form S-3 and (Nos. 333-60588and 333-60590) on Form S-8 of our reports dated February 5, 2002 (except for Note 12(c) which is as of March 15, 2002) relating to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of PracticeWorks, Inc. in the Company’s Annual Report on Form10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002. 

 

BDO SEIDMAN, LLP

Atlanta, Georgia 

 

March 26, 2003
Featured Grant OpportunitySchool Emergency Response to Violence (Project SERV) (Funding Opportunity) 

Featured Grant OpportunityShare with Youth: NOAA Student Opportunities Database

Featured Grant OpportunityShort Courses in Social Determinants of Health for Research Education in Nursing Research (Funding...

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch on Law Enforcement Responses to Opioid Overdoses (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityComprehensive Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equity (CPACHE) Program (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityRisk and Protective Factors of Family Health and Family Level Interventions (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityPersonnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities--Doctoral...

Featured Grant OpportunityStanding Announcement for Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development Grants (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityProviding Research Education Experiences to Enhance Inclusivity for a Diverse Substance Use and...

Featured Grant OpportunityFY 2024 Research on School-Based Hate Crimes (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityChallenge America (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch and Evaluation on Firearm Violence and Mass Shootings (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityNational Juvenile Court Data Archive (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityGraduate Research Fellowship (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityCommunity Programs for Outreach and Intervention with Youth and Young Adults at Clinical High Risk...

Featured Grant OpportunityPrint and Disseminate Child Victims and Witnesses Support Materials (Funding Opportunity)

## Breadcrumb

            -           Youth Financial Education: Executive Function Activities      

# Youth Financial Education: Executive Function Activities

This page provides information and resources to help parents and caregivers teach young children the basic skills needed for a bright financial future. 

https://www.consumerfinance.gov/consumer-tools/money-as-you-grow/early-childhood/
§ 1.327 Motions. ( a ) Motions shall state the relief sought, the authority relied upon, and the facts alleged, and shall be filed with the ALJ and served on all other parties.
( b ) Except for motions made during a prehearing conference or at the hearing, all motions shall be in writing. The ALJ may require that oral motions be reduced to writing.
( c ) The ALJ may require written motions to be accompanied by supporting memorandums.
( d ) Within 15 days after a written motion is served, or such other time as may be fixed by the ALJ, any party may file a response to such motion.
( e ) The ALJ may not grant a written motion prior to expiration of the time for filing responses thereto, except upon consent of the parties or following a hearing, but may overrule or deny such motion without awaiting a response.
( f ) The ALJ shall make every reasonable effort to dispose of all outstanding motions prior to the beginning of the hearing.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Damien Gilbert, Appellant.

[776 NYS2d 53]

*287Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Sudolnik, J.), rendered March 1, 2002, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of 2Vs to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. The totality of defendant’s interactions with the other persons present warrants the conclusion that defendant was a participant in the drug transaction, whose role, at a minimum, consisted of evaluating the undercover officer as a prospective purchaser *(see People v Bello,*92 NY2d 523 [1998]).

Testimony that at the time of his arrest defendant was in possession of an unspecified amount of money that was not prerecorded buy money could not have caused any prejudice. Defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them. Concur—Tom. J.P., Saxe, Lerner, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.
#### § 1.171 Intervention.

Intervention under these rules shall not be allowed, except that, in the discretion of the Judicial Officer, or the Judge, any person showing a substantial interest in the outcome of the proceeding shall be permitted to participate in oral or written argument pursuant to §§ 1.169 and 1.170.

[45 FR 6587, Jan. 29, 1980, as amended at 60 FR 8458, Feb. 14, 1995]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
related Form 10-Q financial statements for FirstEnergy Corp. and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
(Amounts in 1,000's, except earnings per share.)
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001031296
<NAME> FIRSTENERGY CORP.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    9,117,895
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                  2,668,357
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                       1,258,580
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                     5,063,016
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              18,107,848
<COMMON>                                        23,091
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                    3,568,340
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                          1,001,704
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>               4,593,135
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          256,246
<PREFERRED>                                    648,395
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                         6,056,213
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                             193,945
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                 159,882
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                  572,739
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                       38,464
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                46,314
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>               5,542,515
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>               18,107,848
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                    1,607,930
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            97,899
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                   1,234,086
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                   1,331,985
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        275,945
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                   0
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 275,945
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       135,027
<NET-INCOME>                                   140,918
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                        0
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        84,455
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                      469,930
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         327,915
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .63
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .63


</TABLE>
Exhibit
10.3


 


DEBT
SATISFACTION AGREEMENT (“AGREEMENT”) ENTERED INTO BY AND BETWEEN ENTEST BIOMEDICAL, INC. (“DEBTOR”) AND
DUNHILL ROSS PARTNERS INC. (“CREDITOR”) DATED MAY 25, 2017.


 


WHEREAS,
As of MAY 25, 2017 , DEBTOR is indebted to CREDITOR in the principal amount of $165,850.


WHEREAS
DEBTOR wishes to accept equity securities of CREDITOR in satisfaction of $165,850 of the total principal debt due to DEBTOR
from CREDITOR (“Settlement Debt”)


 


THEREFORE,
It is agreed as follows:


		1.	STOCK
                                         IN SATISFACTION OF SETTLEMENT DEBT. On or before , May 31 2017 CREDITOR will issue to
                                         DEBTOR 165,850 newly issued shares of the CREDITOR’s Non Voting Convertible Preferred
                                         Stock in full satisfaction of the Settlement Debt.



		2.	ENTIRE
                                         AGREEMENT. This instrument contains the entire agreement of the parties with respect
                                         to the subject matter hereof and supersedes any prior agreements of the parties with
                                         respect to the subject matter hereof. It may be changed only by an agreement in writing
                                         signed by a party against whom enforcement of any waiver, change, modification, extension
                                         or discharge is sought.



		3.	GOVERNING
                                         LAW AND VENUE. Each party hereby irrevocably submits to the exclusive jurisdiction of
                                         the state and federal courts sitting in California for the adjudication of any dispute
                                         hereunder or in connection herewith or with any transaction contemplated hereby or discussed
                                         herein and hereby irrevocably waives, and agrees not to assert in any suit, action or
                                         proceeding, any claim that it is not personally subject to the jurisdiction of any such
                                         court, that such suit, action or proceeding is improper or inconvenient venue for such
                                         proceeding. If either party shall commence an action or proceeding to enforce any provisions
                                         of this Agreement, then the prevailing party in such action or proceeding shall be reimbursed
                                         by the other party for its attorneys’ fees and other costs and expenses incurred
                                         with the investigation, preparation and prosecution of such action or proceeding.



IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first above written.





	Creditor:
    Dunhill Ross Partners Inc.	Debtor:
    Entest Biomadical, Inc.
	By:
    /s/Timothy G. Foat	By:/s/
    David Koos
	Its:
    President	Its:
    Chairman and CEO
	Date:
    May 25, 2017	Date:
    May 25, 2017
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

   Schedule of Year-To-Date Principal and Interest Distributions
                           to
                  Certificateholders
                                                                              Ending
Class                   Interest             Principal      Losses           Balance
<S>                     <C>                  <C>            <C>              <C>
A1                    11,890,895.99      23,328,485.03         0.00        430,888,876.96
A2                     2,107,517.99       3,344,621.10         0.00         76,960,870.91
B1                       385,201.88         139,000.87         0.00         14,357,999.12
B2                       138,674.79          50,041.08         0.00          5,168,958.92
B3                        92,441.01          33,357.52         0.00          3,445,642.47
B4                        46,233.80          16,683.56         0.00          1,723,316.44
B5                        30,822.52          11,122.38         0.00          1,148,877.63
B6                        38,531.08          13,904.01         0.00          1,436,205.98
IO                     1,340,493.34               0.00         0.00                  0.00
PO                             0.00         720,845.88         0.00         17,107,298.80
R                              0.00               0.00         0.00                  0.00

</TABLE>
§ 1.635 What are the requirements for motions? ( a ) *General.* Any party may apply for an order or ruling on any matter related to the hearing process by presenting a motion to the ALJ. A motion may be presented any time after the Hearing Clerk issues a docketing notice under § 1.630. ( 1 ) A motion made at a hearing may be stated orally on the record, unless the ALJ directs that it be reduced to writing.
( 2 ) Any other motion must: ( i ) Be in writing;
( ii ) Comply with the requirements of §§ 1.610 through 1.613 with respect to form, content, filing, and service; and
( iii ) Not exceed 15 pages, including all supporting arguments.
( b ) *Content.* ( 1 ) Each motion must state clearly and concisely: ( i ) Its purpose and the relief sought;
( ii ) The facts constituting the grounds for the relief sought; and
( iii ) Any applicable statutory or regulatory authority.
( 2 ) A proposed order must accompany the motion.
( c ) *Response.* Except as otherwise required by this part, any other party may file a response to a written motion within 10 days after service of the motion. The response may not exceed 15 pages, including all supporting arguments. When a party presents a motion at a hearing, any other party may present a response orally on the record.
( d ) *Reply.* Unless the ALJ orders otherwise, no reply to a response may be filed.
( e ) *Effect of filing.* Unless the ALJ orders otherwise, the filing of a motion does not stay the hearing process.
( f ) *Ruling.* The ALJ will rule on the motion as soon as practicable, either orally on the record or in writing. He or she may summarily deny any dilatory, repetitive, or frivolous motion.
EXHIBIT 15.1


                             PROPERTY LOCATION MAPS




                 MAP 1 - Bulakashu Property, Krygyzstan
                 MAP 2 - Eastern Sary Jaz Property, Eastern Krygyzstan
                 MAP 3 - Kokjar Property, Krygyzstan
                 MAP 4 - Souker Property, Kola Peninsula
                 MAP 5 - Uleeta and Tsaga Properties, Kola Peninsula





<PAGE>





                                     MAP - 1

                       [GRAPHIC OMITTED][GRAPHIC OMITTED]

                         Bulakashu Property, Krygyzstan


                  [Please refer to PDF format of Exhibit 15.1]





<PAGE>





                                     Map - 2


                       [GRAPHIC OMITTED][GRAPHIC OMITTED]

                 Eastern Sary Jaz Property, Eastern Krygyzstan

                  [Please refer to PDF format of Exhibit 15.1]



<PAGE>




                                     Map - 3

                       [GRAPHIC OMITTED][GRAPHIC OMITTED]

                          Kokjar Property, Krygyzstan


                  [Please refer to PDF format of Echibit 15.1]



<PAGE>





                                     Map - 4

                       [GRAPHIC OMITTED][GRAPHIC OMITTED]


                        Souker Property, Kola Peninsula


                  [Please refer to PDF format of Exhibit 15.1]


<PAGE>





                                     Map - 5

                       [GRAPHIC OMITTED][GRAPHIC OMITTED]


                  Uleeta and Tsaga Properties, Kola Peninsula

                  [Please refer to PDF format of Exhibit 15.1]

<PAGE>
----

|  | (1) | Such      Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of 15 (d)      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and |
|--|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  | (2) | The      information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations      of  Tri-ValleyCorporation. |
|--|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  | November      10, 2008                                                         |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                           |
| By:    | /s/F. Lynn Blystone                                                            |
|   | F.      Lynn Blystone, Chief Executive Officer CHOBTri-Valley      Corporation |

----
#### Margaret Tighe et al., Respondents, v. Go Shelk Cab Corp. et al., Defendants, and Marie W. Clifford, Appellant.

Order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated November 22, 1966, reversed, without costs, and defendant Clifford’s motion to dismiss the complaint as to her, for want of prosecution, and for severance of the action as to her granted, without costs. Plaintiffs offered no justification for unreasonably neglecting to proceed in the action; nor did they submit an affidavit of merits in opposition to the motion. There is no merit to plaintiffs’ contention that the service of the 45-day notice within the six-month period following the date of joinder of issue was ineffective *(Vercesi*v. *Lucas,*26 A D 2d 550). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
#### Norman Annenberg, Appellant-Respondent, v Antonio Calvo et al., Respondents-Appellants.

[776 NYS2d 38]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered March 11, 2003, which granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment only to the extent of striking the second, fourth and fifth affirmative defenses and dismissing all counterclaims, denied defendants’ cross motion to dismiss the complaint against the individual defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction, and, upon search of the record, dismissed the second cause of action and all claims of compensation for legal services rendered prior to April 23, 1996, unanimously modified, on the law, to also strike the ninth affirmative defense, and to reinstate the claims accruing prior to April 23, 1996, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The gist of this lawsuit is a claim for legal services rendered over a period of 14 years. The parties dispute the nature of their relationship. Plaintiff, appearing pro se, claims he refrained from billing for various services so as not to interfere with defendants’ cash flow, while defendants contend that plaintiff provided legal services gratis to his close friend, defendant Antonio Calvo, in exchange for personal favors over the years, such as chauffeuring, construction and extermination services, and gifts of electronic equipment. Whatever the nature of the relationship, there are clearly factual issues of credibility.

*264Notwithstanding defendants’ claims that they never intended to pay for legal services, the record establishes four relatively small payments by them to plaintiff for such assistance. Plaintiff calls these partial payments, whereas defendants maintain they were specifically referable to particular legal services, notwithstanding the general notations for “legal services” on the checks. The parties’ competing versions create issues of fact as to the purpose of these payments.

Since the nature of the relationship requires further exploration, it was premature for the court to search the record on its own initiative, dismissing all claims for services rendered more than six years prior to the lawsuit. Defendants never moved to dismiss on statute-of-limitations grounds. On this record, plaintiffs claim that he received partial payments for prior services sufficient to toll the statute of limitations cannot be rejected as a matter of law.

With regard to the ninth affirmative defense, laches is not available in an action at law *(see Republic Ins. Co. v Real Dev. Co.,*161 AD2d 189, 190 [1990]), and the assertion of estoppel, based on defendants’ alleged reliance to their detriment on plaintiffs promises not to bill for services, is unsupportable and highly speculative. The counterclaim under Judiciary Law § 487 was properly dismissed.

Finally, we agree with the court that further discovery is needed before determining whether long-arm jurisdiction was properly acquired over the individual defendants. We have reviewed the parties’ remaining arguments for affirmative relief and find them to be without merit. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan and Ellerin, JJ.