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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET OF SYNTELLECT, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES AS OF JUNE 30,
2000, AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS OF SYNTELLECT, INC. AND
SUBSIDIARIES FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                            5856
<SECURITIES>                                      1100
<RECEIVABLES>                                    12041
<ALLOWANCES>                                       605
<INVENTORY>                                       1361
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 20344
<PP&E>                                           12261
<DEPRECIATION>                                    8469
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   24136
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             9703
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           143
<OTHER-SE>                                       21932
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     24136
<SALES>                                          11331
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 24779
<CGS>                                             3002
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    10422
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 12313
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   390
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   1001
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               1001
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      1001
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .08


</TABLE>
**                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Exhibit    34.3**
***Ernst      & Young LLP***

**Report      of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

| /s/              Ernst & Young LLP  |
|----------------------------------------------|
|                                         |
|                                         |
| March              1, 2007              |
Case 5:00-cv-00071-RH Document 56 Filed 11/01/01 Page 1 of 1
#### MARX v. WHITE CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.

June 18, 1914.)

Accord and Satisfaction (§ 11*)—Compromise and Settlement (§ 6*)— What Constitutes.

Where defendant disputed plaintiff’s claim for extra work upon a contract, the acceptance by plaintiff of a check, which defendant stated covered its entire indebtedness on the work and which was indorsed “in full settlement,” constitutes an accord and satisfaction.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Accord and Satisfaction, Cent. Dig. §§ 75-S2; Dec. Dig. § 11 ;* Compromise and Settlement, Cent. Dig. §§ 35-50; Dec. Dig. § 6.*]

Appeal from City Court of New York, Trial Term.

Action by George B. Marx against the White Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.

Reversed, and complaint dismised.

See, also, 143 N. Y. Supp. 1036.

Argued June term, 1914, before SEABURY, BIJUR, and PAGE, JJ.

Charles M. Russell, of New York City (Walter L. Post, of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.

Abraham Nelson, of New York City, for respondent.

*

For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. *&*Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

PAGE, J.

This action was brought to recover for the balance due under an alleged contract and also for extra work connected with the making by plaintiff of 20 automobile bodies on defendant’s order.

A prior judgment in favor of plaintiff was reversed by this court. 143 N. Y. Supp. 1036. Nothing has appeared in this case to warrant any change in our views there expressed, and they apply to the record now before us.

It seems quite plain that defendant established an accord and satisfaction.

Respondent urges that the letter and check which evidenced the accord and satisfaction are insufficient because a considerable part of the claim is for extra work, and because the settlement is spoken of in defendant’s letter as being “in accordance with the contract.” The answer to this contention, however, lies in the fact that defendant disputed the claim for the extra work; that it was at the time one of the items in controversy; and that the acts of the parties must be interpreted, not by. what plaintiff claims he would like to understand, but what was the plainly expressed intention.

Defendant wrote;

> “We inclose our check for 8132.59 together with a statement showing our entire indebtedness to you on the Cimbel bodies.”

And the check was indorsed:

> “In full settlement as per contract, 8132.59.”

Judgment reversed, with costs, and’complaint dismissed, with costs. All concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0511

IN THE MATTER OF:

S.E.,

Respondent and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and 

good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including July 12, 2021, within which to prepare, file, and 

serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Jim Rice

Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 7 2021

06/08/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0511
----

----

Exhibit 32.1 Section 906Certification

|   | In      connection with the Annual Report of Tamm Oil and Gas Corp. (the      “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2009 as filed with      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),      I, Wiktor Musial, Principal Executive Officer/Principal Financial Officer,      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |         (1)              The      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

|   | By:                                                         | /s/      Wiktor Musial |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------|
|   | Principal      Executive Officer/Principal FinancialOfficer |

----

| TAMM      OIL AND GAS                               |                   |
|-----------------------------------------------------|------------------------|
|                                                |                   |
| By:                                                 | /s/      Wiktor Musial |   |
| Wiktor      MusialPresidentDate:      July 14, 2009 |                   |

| By:                           | /s/      Wiktor Musial |   |
|-------------------------------|------------------------|--------|
| Wiktor      Musial, President |                   |

----
#### §§ 701.118-701.125 [Reserved]
###### Editorial Note on Part 47

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 47 appear at 64 FR 38108, July 15, 1999.

#### § 47.5 Scope and applicability of administrative procedures.

Sections 47.6 through 47.25 shall be applicable to the procedure governing the filing and disposition of formal complaints in reparation proceedings. Sections 47.47 through 47.68 shall be applicable to the proceedings for determining whether a person is responsibly connected with a licensee under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act. Sections 47.1 through 47.5 and § 47.46 shall be applicable to all proceedings under §§ 47.6 through 47.25. Sections 47.1 and 47.2, except for § 47.2 (i) through (r), shall be applicable to all proceedings under §§ 47.47 through 47.68. In addition, except to the extent that they are inconsistent with §§ 1.130 through 1.151 of this chapter, §§ 47.1 through 47.5 and 47.46 are also applicable to procedures governing the filing and disposition of formal complaints and other moving papers relating to administrative proceedings to enforce the Act pursuant to §§ 1.130 through 1.151 of this chapter.

[43 FR 30787, July 18, 1978, as amended at 60 FR 8459, Feb. 14, 1995]
52.203-19 Prohibition on Requiring Certain

Internal Confidentiality Agreements or

Statements.

As prescribed in 3.909-3(b), insert the following clause:

Prohibition on Requiring Certain Internal Confidentiality Agreements or Statements (Jan 2017)

(a) Definitions. As used in this clauseInternal confidentiality agreement or statement means a confidentiality agreement or any other

written statement that the contractor requires any of its employees or subcontractors to sign

regarding nondisclosure of contractor information, except that it does not include confidentiality

agreements arising out of civil litigation or confidentiality agreements that contractor employees or

subcontractors sign at the behest of a Federal agency.

Subcontract means any contract as defined in subpart 2.1 entered into by a subcontractor to furnish

supplies or services for performance of a prime contract or a subcontract. It includes but is not

limited to purchase orders, and changes and modifications to purchase orders.

Subcontractor means any supplier, distributor, vendor, or firm (including a consultant) that

furnishes supplies or services to or for a prime contractor or another subcontractor.

(b) The Contractor shall not require its employees or subcontractors to sign or comply with internal

confidentiality agreements or statements prohibiting or otherwise restricting such employees or

subcontractors from lawfully reporting waste, fraud, or abuse related to the performance of a

Government contract to a designated investigative or law enforcement representative of a Federal

department or agency authorized to receive such information (e.g., agency Office of the Inspector

General).

(c) The Contractor shall notify current employees and subcontractors that prohibitions and

restrictions of any preexisting internal confidentiality agreements or statements covered by this

clause, to the extent that such prohibitions and restrictions are inconsistent with the prohibitions of

this clause, are no longer in effect.

(d) The prohibition in paragraph (b) of this clause does not contravene requirements applicable to

Standard Form 312 (Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement), Form 4414 (Sensitive

Compartmented Information Nondisclosure Agreement), or any other form issued by a Federal

department or agency governing the nondisclosure of classified information.

(e) In accordance with section 743 of Division E, Title VII, of the Consolidated and Further

Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, (Pub. L. 113-235), and its successor provisions in subsequent

appropriations acts (and as extended in continuing resolutions) use of funds appropriated (or

otherwise made available) is prohibited, if the Government determines that the Contractor is not in

compliance with the provisions of this clause.

(f) The Contractor shall include the substance of this clause, including this paragraph (f), in

subcontracts under such contracts.
(End of clause)

Parent topic: 52.203 [Reserved]
§ 61.2a Designation of official certificates, memoranda, marks, other identifications, and devices for purpose of the Agricultural Marketing Act. Subsection 203(h) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, as amended by Pub. L. 272, 84th Congress, provides criminal penalties for various specified offenses relating to official certificates, memoranda, marks, or other identifications, and devices for making such marks or identifications, issued or authorized under section 203 of said act, and certain misrepresentations concerning the inspection or grading of agricultural products under said section. For the purposes of said subsection and the provisions in this part, the terms listed below shall have the respective meanings specified: ( a ) *Official certificate* means any form of certification, either written or printed, used under this part to certify with respect to the inspection, sampling, class, grade, quality, quantity, or condition of products (including the compliance of products with applicable specifications).
( b ) *Official memorandum* means any initial record of findings made by an authorized person in the process of grading, inspecting, or sampling, pursuant to this part, any processing or plant-operation report made by an authorized person in connection with grading, inspecting, or sampling under this part, and any report made by an authorized person of services performed pursuant to this part.
( c ) *Official mark* means the grade mark, inspection mark, and any other mark, approved by the Administrator and authorized to be affixed to any product, or affixed to or printed on the packaging material of any product, stating that the product was graded or inspected or both, or indicating the appropriate U.S. grade or condition of the product, or for the purpose or maintaining the identity of products graded or inspected or both under this part.
( d ) *Official identification* means any United States (U.S.) standard designation of class, grade, quality, quantity, or condition specified in this part, or any symbol, stamp, label, or seal indicating that the product has been officially graded or inspected and/or indicating the class, grade, quality, quantity, or condition of the product, approved by the Administrator and authorized to be affixed to any product, or affixed to or printed on the packaging material of any product.
( e ) *Official device* means a stamping appliance, branding device, stencil, printed label, or any other mechanically or manually operated tool that is approved by the Administrator for the purpose of applying any official mark or other identification to any product or the packaging material thereof.
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

PAUL WAYNE MERRITT,

Petitioner,

v. 4:20cv523–WS/MJF

FLORIDA PAROLE COMMISSION, et al.,

Respondent.

 

ORDER DISMISSING PETITIONER'S PETITION

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Before the court is the magistrate judge's report and recommendation (ECF

No. 3) dated November 5, 2020. The magistrate judge recommends that the

petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed as successive. The

petitioner has filed no objections to the report and recommendation.

Because there is nothing in the record that reflects that the petitioner has

been granted leave by the Eleventh Circuit to file a second or successive habeas

corpus petition, this court lacks the authority to consider the petitioner's claim. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

Case 4:20-cv-00523-WS-MJF Document 5 Filed 12/14/20 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation (ECF No. 3) is hereby

ADOPTED and incorporated by reference into this order.

2. The petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED as an

unauthorized successive petition, over which this court lacks jurisdiction.

3. The clerk shall enter judgment stating: "All claims are dismissed for lack

of jurisdiction.”

DONE AND ORDERED this 14th day of December , 2020.

s/ William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:20-cv-00523-WS-MJF Document 5 Filed 12/14/20 Page 2 of 2
52.247-42 C.i.f. Destination.       As prescribed in 47.303-14(c), insert the following clause in solicitations and contracts when the delivery term is c.i.f. destination:          C.i.f. Destination (Apr 1984)                                       (a) 						            The term "c.i.f. destination," as used in this clause, means free of expense to the Government delivered on board the ocean vessel to the specified point of destination, with the cost of transportation and marine insurance paid by the Contractor.                                          (b) 						            The Contractor shall-                                                         (1)                                                                           (i) 										                    Pack and mark the shipment to comply with contract specifications; or                                                                              (ii) 										                    In the absence of specifications, prepare the shipment for ocean transportation in conformance with carrier requirements;                                                                                                           (2)                                                                           (i) 										                    Deliver the shipment in good order and condition; and                                                                              (ii) 										                    Pay and bear all applicable charges to the point of destination specified in the contract, including transportation costs and export taxes or other fees or charges levied because of exportation;                                                                                                           (3) 								                Obtain and dispatch promptly to the Government clean on-board ocean bills of lading to the specified point of destination;                                                            (4) 								                Be responsible for any loss of and/or damage to the goods occurring before delivery;                                                            (5) 								                At the Government’s request and expense, provide certificates of origin, consular invoices, or any other documents issued in the country of origin or of shipment, or both, that may be required for importation into the country of destination; and                                                            (6) 								                Obtain and dispatch to the Government an insurance policy or certificate providing the amount and extent of marine insurance coverage specified in the contract or agreed upon by the Government Contracting Officer.                                                                    (End of clause)    **Parent topic:** 52.247 [Reserved]
Case 3:20-cv-05911-RV-HTC Document 10 Filed 12/01/20 Page 1 of 3
Case 3:20-cv-05911-RV-HTC Document 10 Filed 12/01/20 Page 2 of 3
Case 3:20-cv-05911-RV-HTC Document 10 Filed 12/01/20 Page 3 of 3
**EXHIBIT 33.3**

**REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATION AB SERVICING CRITERIA**

Crusade Management Limited (the “**Asserting Party**”) is responsible for assessing compliance as of September 30, 2007 and for the period from October 1, 2006 through September 30, 2007 (the “**Reporting Period**”) with the servicing criteria set forth in Section 229.1122(d) of the Code of Federal Regulations (the “**CFR**”), except for criteria 1122(d)(1)(ii), 1122(d)(1)(iv), 1122(d)(2)(iii)-(vi), 1122(d)(4)(i)-(ii) and 1122(d)(4)(iv)-(xiv) in the CFR, which the Asserting Party has concluded are not applicable to the activities it performs with respect to the asset-backed securities transactions covered by this report (the “**Applicable Servicing Criteria**”).

The transactions covered by this report include asset-backed securities transactions for which the Asserting Party acted as manager that are backed by the same asset type backing the class of asset-backed securities of the Crusade Global Trust No. 2 of 2006 (including the Crusade Global Trust No. 2 of 2006 asset-backed securities transaction), that were completed on or after January 1, 2006 and that were registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “**SEC**”) pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933 (the “**Platform**”).

The Asserting Party used the criteria set forth in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB to assess the compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.  The Asserting Party has assessed its compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of September 30, 2007 and for the Reporting Period and has concluded that the Asserting Party has complied, in all material respects, with the Applicable Servicing Criteria with respect to the Platform taken as a whole.

KPMG, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report on the Asserting Party’s assessment of compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of September 30, 2007 and for the Reporting Period as set forth in this assessment.

Crusade Management Limited

|  /s/ Gregory M. Bartlett |   |
|-------------------------------|--------|

Name:  Gregory M. Bartlett

Title:  Director

Date:  17 December 2007
DUPLICATE

Court Name: U S DISTRICT COURT - AL/M

Division: 2

Recei pt Number: 4602002463

Cashier ID: brobinso

Transaction Date: 12/28/2007

Payer Name: HOLMAN CORR FACILITY

PLRA CIVIL FILING FEE

For: WAYNE BLACK

Case/Part y : D-ALM-2-03--CV-000734-OO1

Amount: $4.52

CHECK

Check/Honey Order Num: 23019

Amt Tendered: $4.52

Total Due: $4.52

Total Tendered: $4.52

Change Amt: $0.00

a

Case 1:03-cv-00734-MEF-SRW Document 49 Filed 12/28/2007 Page 1 of 1