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

<ARTICLE>                                          5

<S>                                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                      6-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  Oct-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                       Apr-30-2000
<CASH>                                                       244,952
<SECURITIES>                                                 401,757
<RECEIVABLES>                                                292,241
<ALLOWANCES>                                                 (53,039)
<INVENTORY>                                                    3,591
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                             996,789
<PP&E>                                                       710,035
<DEPRECIATION>                                              (368,123)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                             1,772,540
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                        366,381
<BONDS>                                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                              0
<PREFERRED>                                                        0
<COMMON>                                                      32,455
<OTHER-SE>                                                 1,361,696
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                               1,772,540
<SALES>                                                      618,392
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                             618,392
<CGS>                                                        163,598
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                163,598
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                             400,025
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                              105,355
<INCOME-TAX>                                                  29,500
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                           75,855
<DISCONTINUED>                                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                    0
<CHANGES>                                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                                  75,855
<EPS-BASIC>                                                   0.23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                   0.22



</TABLE>
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-3D (No. 033-65417), and Form S-3 (No. 333-156785) and Form S-8 (No. 333-95343) of Alliance Financial Corporation of our reports dated March 12, 2009 relating to the consolidated financial
statements and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K for December 31, 2008.

/s/ Crowe Horwath LLPCrowe Horwath LLP


Livingston, New Jersey

March 12, 2009
To: 12022671293 From: 16147981620 Date: 08/14/15 Time: 12:06 PM Page: 04/06
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON,D.C. 

### IN THE MATTER OF

Spirit Avionics, Ltd. FAA DOCKET NO. FAA-2014-0119 DMS NO. 2012-GL-07-0056 FAA CASE NO. 2012-GL-07-0056

ANSWER OF.RESPONDENT 

### Now comesRespondent, byand through counsel, and for its Answer to the Amended Complaint filed by Complainant on August 12,2015,restates and avers as follows: 1. 

### Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 1 

### ofthe Complaint. 2. Respondent admits the allegations contained in

### paragraph 2 ofthe Complaint. 3. 

### Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 3 

### ofthe Complaint. 4. Respondent admits that its sub-contracted portions ofthe work referred to in paragraph 3 **---------------.ornfntlfri~erlC~oo,mnprmnt~tffo~Lrao""'e'A~v~JarltJ~o~n•.--------------------------------------------------** 

### 5. Respondent admits that sometime prior to February 24,2011 an employee ofRespondent fabricated certain brackets and lanyards that would eventual!y 

### beused ontheFAA aircraft. 6. Respondent admits thatthe brackets and lanyards were to be used onthe subject FAA airc;aft. 7. Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 7 ofthe Complaint.To: 12022671293 From: 16147981620 Date: 08/14/15 Time: 12:06 PM Page: 05/06
8. Respondent denies each and every allegation contained in the Complaint not herein admitted specifically to betrue. 

### OTHERDEFENSES 9. Respondent denies that the transactions between 

### itand Lane Aviation constituted 

### a sale or sales ofany fabricated brackets and/or fabricated lanyards as alleged in the Complaint. 10. Respondent did notviolate anyprovisions ofany section ofthe Federal Aviation Regulations. 

### WHEREFORE, Respondentrespectfully demands that the Complaintherein be dismissed at the cost ofthe agency.

· kJ.Moro J .. A Eichenberger

ICBENBEROER .& ASSOCIATES 6037 Frantz Road, Suite 1 07 Dublin, Ohio 43017 Phone: 614"798-1600 Fax: 614-798-1620 

### Attorneys for RespondentTo: 12022671293 From: 16147981620 

# • LlC.:HEt-.:DERCiEiR &:_t\.SSOC!ATES (\ 1(1.;)111 ::'""""''·'"':';',;;,'

**<i"'jr~i~"JW,)t**

Notes Date: 08/14/15 Time: 12:06 PM Page: 01/06

llll111111111

**&~j\\\\\\11•** ll'li Date: TO Fax Number: Name: FROM Fax Number. Name: Company: Subject: Pages: Fri Aug 1415:05 EDT2015 12022671293 FAA Hearing Docket 16147981620 Patrick Mom FAA-2014-0119 6 Please find the attached Answerto Complainant's AmendOO Complaint and the Supplemental Affida\<\t of Eric ()chs attachEd.
<(;!";(, ;i.<,';)

**(~{ r~?,**  **-~~111·--•(;H!F'** ,11 !"r':>fi'>--Ei<:•n·li "'"" ;;:-.ii)ii<>n i"r·;v!l.;!: frCi:•r'>d.

**('~";** 'l -; 0 "' i);,lt)lW. {• -b ;DD'i i'
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

MARCUS MOTON,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No.: 3:20cv5950/MCR/EMT

SKANSKA USA CIVIL

SOUTHEAST, INC.,

Defendant.

_____________________/

ORDER

The chief magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation on January 

11, 2022 (ECF No. 18). The court provided the parties a copy of the Report and 

Recommendation and afforded the parties an opportunity to file objections pursuant 

to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). There have been no timely filed 

objections.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation and the record, I have 

determined the Report and Recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The chief magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 

18) is adopted and incorporated by reference in this order.

1. Skanska USA Civil Southeast, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 14) 

Case 3:20-cv-05950-MCR-EMT Document 19 Filed 02/25/22 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 3:20cv5950/MCR/EMT

is GRANTED, and this action is DISMISSED with prejudice.

3. The clerk of court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this 

order and close the case.

DONE AND ORDERED this 25th day of February 2022.

 M. Casey Rodgers

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cv-05950-MCR-EMT Document 19 Filed 02/25/22 Page 2 of 2
#### Gelco Builders and Burjay Construction Corp., a Joint Venture, Respondent, v. Diners Financial Corp., Appellant, et al., Defendants.

Judgment entered June 30, 1969 so far as appealed from by defendant-appellant Diners Financial Corp. unanimously reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements to the defendant-appellant, the verdict rendered against it vacated, the action severed and the complaint as against said defendant-appellant dismissed. After a week of testimony and after both sides had rested, the court, over objection, granted the plaintiff’s motion to conform the pleadings to the proof. The original theory of plaintiff’s case was thus changed from one that pleaded that defendants fraudulently conspired to induce the plaintiff general contractor to enter into a subcontract with defendant Raymar Contracting Corp. to a claim that defendants had conspired to induce Raymar to breach that subcontract after it had been entered into. The granting of the plaintiff’s motion in the circumstances, six years after the action was commenced and following extensive examinations and discovery proceedings and an amendment of the complaint, 10-years after the operative facts occurred, and after a defense predicated upon the complaint as originally drawn (the plaintiff’s motion to conform made at the conclusion of its case having been granted at the conclusion of the defendants’ case), was improper and constituted an abuse of discretion. *{Be Fabio*v. *Nadder Rental Sen.,*27 A D 2d 931; *Beer*v. *Clyde S. S. Co.,*212 App. Div. 463, 466.) Assuming that a proper motion had been made to amend and that the original proceeding gave notice of the transactions to be proved pursuant to the amended pleading, the claim would have been barred by the Statute of Limitations. Both at the time the tort occurred (May 2, 1960) and when the action was commenced (March, 1963), the Civil Practice Act was in effect and suit was barred as of May 2, 1963. *{Harriss*v. *Tams,*258 N. T. 229, 242; Civ. Prac. Act, § 49, subd. 7; CPLR 203, subd. [e]; 218, subd. [a], eff. September 1, 1963.) In any event, even after allowing the amendment, the trial court should have dismissed the complaint. Plaintiff failed to prove a breach of the nonassignability clauses of the Raymar subcontract. Nor did it show any damages flowing from the alleged breach, that but for the defendant-appellant’s inducement of the breach of the nonassignment clause Raymar would have performed under the subcontract. *{Union Car Adv. Co.*v. *Collier,*263 N. Y. 386, 400; *Simon*v. *Noma Elec. Corp.,*293 N. Y. 171, 177.) Accordingly, the judgment against defendant-appellant must be reversed and the complaint dismissed. The appeal from the order entered October 8, 1969 denying appellant’s motion to set aside the verdict is dismissed as academic. Concur — Capozzoli, J. P., Markewich, Steuer and Tilzer, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule  contains summary financial  information  extracted from Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended September 30, 1999 for May Limited  Partnership 1984-1 and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such Form 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000757525
<NAME>                        May Limited Partnership 1984-1
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         52
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  37
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         215
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 304
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   304
<SALES>                                        142
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               146
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  23
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                77
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            77
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   77
<EPS-BASIC>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0



</TABLE>
(April 21, 1980)

#### Brennan Restaurant Builders Supply Corp., Appellant, v Jimbold Corporation, Respondent, et al., Defendants.

In an action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, *610Westchester County, entered July 18, 1979, which denied its motion for summary judgment and granted the cross motion of defendant Jimbold Corporation for summary judgment. Order modified, on the law, by deleting thereform the provision granting defendant Jimbold’s cross motion and substituting therefor a provision denying said cross motion. As so modified, order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements payable to plaintiff. The record indicates that there are triable issues of fact regarding the existence of an implied consent and whether the work performed by plaintiff constituted improvements inuring to the benefit of the owner as required by section 3 of the Lien Law. Thus, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied and defendant Jimbold’s cross motion for the same relief should have been denied. Rabin, J. P., Gulotta, Cohalan and Margett, JJ., concur.
52.236-25 Requirements for Registration of

Designers.

As prescribed in 36.609-4 , insert the following clause:

Requirements for Registration of Designers (June 2003)

Architects or engineers registered to practice in the particular professional field involved in a State,

the District of Columbia, or an outlying area of the United States shall prepare or review and

approve the design of architectural, structural, mechanical, electrical, civil, or other engineering

features of the work.

(End of clause)

Parent topic: 52.236 [Reserved]
27.306 Licensing background patent rights to third parties.       (a) 						            A contract with a small business concern or nonprofit organization shall not contain a provision allowing the Government to require the licensing to third parties of inventions owned by the contractor that are not subject inventions unless the agency head has approved and signed a written justification in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section. The agency head may not delegate this authority and may exercise the authority only if it is determined that the-                                                         (1) 								                Use of the invention by others is necessary for the practice of a subject invention or for the use of a work object of the contract; and                                                            (2) 								                Action is necessary to achieve the practical application of the subject invention or work object.                                                                             (b) 						            Any determination will be on the record after an opportunity for a hearing, and the agency shall notify the contractor of the determination by certified or registered mail. The notification shall include a statement that the contractor must bring any action for judicial review of the determination within 60 days after the notification.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 27.3 - Patent Rights under Government Contracts
#### In the Matter of Henry R. Dittmer, Respondent, v. Benjamin R. Epstein et al., Constituting the Board of Appeals of the Incorporated Village of Ocean Beach, et al., Appellants.

In a proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the CPLR to compel the Mayor and the Board of Appeals of the Village of Ocean Beach to issue a building permit, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered October 3, 1969, which granted the petition and directed appellant Mayor to issue such permit. Judgment affirmed, without costs. The evidence adduced at the hearing before the Board of Appeals demonstrates conclusively (1) that the subject lot on which petitioner wishes to build a one-family residence has been held in single and separate ownership since prior to the enactment of the zoning ordinance and (2) that there is no feasible use for the lot other than the construction of a home thereon. This being so, the board’s insistence on frontage requirements pursuant to the zoning ordinance constitutes an unconstitutional deprivation of property. Petitioner is entitled therefore to a building permit, even without the granting of a variance *(Matter of Mandalay Constr.*v. *Eccleston,*9 A D 2d 918). The right of petitioner to attack the constitutionality of the zoning ordinance as it applied to his property was not waived by the fact that he applied for a variance on a previous occasion *(Vernon Park Realty*v. *City of Mount Vernon,*307 N. Y. 493; *Village of Lindenhurst*v. *Merhige,*226 N. Y. S. 2d 660). Martuscello, Acting P. J., Latham, Kleinfeld, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

TIMOTHY BAUER,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 5:20-cv-320-TKW-MJF

JACKSON CORRECTIONAL

INSTITUTION, et al.,

Defendants.

/

ORDER

This case is before the Court based upon the magistrate judge’s Report and 

Recommendation (Doc. 14). No objections were filed. Upon due consideration of 

the Report and Recommendation and the case file, the Court agrees with the 

magistrate judge’s determination that this case should be dismissed because Plaintiff 

is deceased and no motion for substitution has been filed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

25(a)(1). Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED that:

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and 

incorporated by reference in this Order.

Case 5:20-cv-00320-TKW-MJF Document 15 Filed 07/26/21 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

2. This case is DISMISSED pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a)(1), and the 

Clerk shall close the case file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 26th day of July, 2021.

T. Kent Wetherell, II 

T. KENT WETHERELL, II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:20-cv-00320-TKW-MJF Document 15 Filed 07/26/21 Page 2 of 2
42.000 Scope of part.       This part prescribes policies and procedures for assigning and performing contract administration and contract audit services.    **Parent topic:** Part 42 - Contract Administration and Audit Services
#### Vigilant Investors Corporation, Appellant, v. Town of Hempstead, Respondent.

In an action to declare the zoning ordinance of the Town of Hempstead unconstitutional and void as applied to plaintiff’s property, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered July 24, 1969, which dismissed the complaint on the merits. Judgment reversed, on the law and the facts, with costs, and judgment granted to plaintiff declaring that the zoning ordinance of the Town of Hempstead is unconstitutional as applied to plaintiff’s property and directing that plaintiff's property be rezoned from Residence B to Business. In our opinion, due to the almost total change to business of the area which surrounds plaintiff’s property on three sides and the location of plaintiff’s property directly on the Bethpage (Hempstead) Turnpike, plaintiff must be accorded a change of zoning from Residence B to Business *(Stevens*v. *Town of*Huntington, 20 N Y 2d 352). The changes in the area over the years resulted from the town’s granting many zoning changes. Rabin, Acting P. J., Hopkins, Latham, Kleinfeld and Brennan, JJ., concur.
52.211-14 Notice of Priority	Rating for National Defense, Emergency Preparedness, and Energy	Program Use.       As prescribed	in 11.604(a), insert	the following provision:          Notice of Priority Rating for National	Defense, Emergency Preparedness, and Energy Program Use (Apr 2008)          Any contract awarded as a result of this solicitation will be □ DX	rated order; □ DO rated	order certified for national defense, emergency preparedness, and	energy program use under the Defense Priorities and Allocations	System (DPAS) (15 CFR700), and the Contractor will be required to	follow all of the requirements of this regulation. [*Contracting	Officer check appropriate box*.]          (End of provision)    **Parent topic:** 52.211 [Reserved]
----

**FORM 10-QSB** 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSIONWashington D.C.  20549

Quarterly Report Under Section 13 or 15 (d)Of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

For Quarter Ended         **June 30, 2004** Commission File Number     2-94704-NY  

** **MedXLink, Corp .**(Exact name of registrant as specified in itscharter                 
                                          NEVADA                                                11-2647209                             (State or other jurisdiction of                                 (IRS Employer                                incorporation or organization)                               Identification No.)**
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

PENSACOLA DIVISION 

 

CASE NO. 3:20-cv-5992-TKW-HTC 

DAVID POSCHMANN, 

 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

 

NEW WORLD LANDING OF 

PENSACOLA, LLC, 

 

 Defendant. 

_________________________/ 

NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL 

 Plaintiff, by and through his undersigned counsel, hereby dismisses this 

action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) with each side to 

bear his/its own fees and costs except as may otherwise be agreed. 

 Dated: March 22, 2021 

 s/Drew M. Levitt 

 Drew M. Levitt 

 Florida Bar No. 782246 

 drewmlevitt@gmail.com 

 Lee D. Sarkin, Esq. 

 Florida Bar No. 962848 

 Lsarkin@aol.com 

 4700 N.W. Boca Raton Boulevard 

 Suite 302 

 Boca Raton, Florida 33431 

 Telephone (561) 994-6922 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Case 3:20-cv-05992-TKW-HTC Document 7 Filed 03/22/21 Page 1 of 1
# L_2021318DE.01000801.xml

| 9.9.2021 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 318/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.9.2021

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 318/8

---

Berichtigung der Verordnung (EU) 2021/1099 der Kommission vom 5. Juli 2021 zur Änderung der Anhänge II und III der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1223/2009 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates über kosmetische Mittel

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 238 vom 6. Juli 2021
  )

Seite 31, Anhang, Nummer 2 zur Anfügung des Eintrags 321 in Anhang III der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1223/2009, Fußnote der Tabelle, Satz 2:

Anstatt:

„Ab dem 22. April 2022 dürfen Haarfärbe- und Selbstbräunungsmittel, die diesen Stoff enthalten und den Einschränkungen nicht entsprechen, auf dem Unionsmarkt nicht in Verkehr gebracht werden.“

muss es heißen:

„Ab dem 22. April 2022 dürfen Haarfärbe- und Selbstbräunungsmittel, die diesen Stoff enthalten und den Einschränkungen nicht entsprechen, auf dem Unionsmarkt nicht bereitgestellt werden.“

---
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

JOE LEWIS JENKINS,

Petitioner,

v. Case No. 3:21cv78-LC-HTC

MARK INCH,

Respondent.

______________________/

ORDER

The magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation on April 12,

2021 (ECF No. 8). The parties were furnished a copy of the Report and

Recommendation and afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title

28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). No objections have been filed.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, I have determined it

should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 8) is

adopted and incorporated by reference in this order.

2. This matter is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to

Case No. 3:21cv78-LC-HTC
Page 2 of 2

prosecute or failure to comply with a Court order. 

3. The clerk of court is directed to close this case.

DONE AND ORDERED this 25th day of May, 2021.

s/L.A. Collier

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case No. 3:21cv78-LC-HTC