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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                       1,504,888
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,504,888
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          202,808
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,302,080
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,504,888
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                53,453
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,642
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (57,095)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (57,095)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (57,095)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.67)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.67)


</TABLE>
# C_2014135EN.01001901.xml

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/19

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 27 January 2014 — Minister Finansów v Wojskowa Agencja Mieszkaniowa w Warszawie

(Case C-42/14)

2014/C 135/21

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law: Minister Finansów

Appellant on a point of law:

Respondent on a point of law: Wojskowa Agencja Mieszkaniowa w Warszawie

Respondent on a point of law:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| (1) | Must Article 14(1), Article 15(1) and Article 24(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) be interpreted as meaning that there are supplies by the landlord of electricity, heat, water and refuse disposal services to the tenant of the premises directly using those goods and services, which are supplied to those premises by specialist third persons, in a situation where one of the parties to the agreements for the supply of those goods and services is the landlord, who simply passes on the costs thereof to the tenant who actually uses them? |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Must Article 14(1), Article 15(1) and Article 24(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) be interpreted as meaning that there are supplies by the landlord of electricity, heat, water and refuse disposal services to the tenant of the premises directly using those goods and services, which are supplied to those premises by specialist third persons, in a situation where one of the parties to the agreements for the supply of those goods and services is the landlord, who simply passes on the costs thereof to the tenant who actually uses them?

1

| (2) | If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, do the costs of electricity, heat, water and refuse disposal used by the tenant of the premises increase, as regards the landlord, the taxable amount (rent), as referred to in Article 73 of Directive 2006/112/EC, resulting from the supply of the rental service, or do the supplies of goods and services in question constitute supplies separate from the rental service? |
| --- | --- |

(2)

If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, do the costs of electricity, heat, water and refuse disposal used by the tenant of the premises increase, as regards the landlord, the taxable amount (rent), as referred to in Article 73 of Directive 2006/112/EC, resulting from the supply of the rental service, or do the supplies of goods and services in question constitute supplies separate from the rental service?

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

1

---
Exhibit 99.5

 

 
|  | • | Ernst & Young LLP  220 South Sixth Street, Ste 1400  Minneapolis, MN   55402-4509 | • | Phone: (612) 343-1000  www.ey.com |
|--|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------|

 

 

Report of IndependentAccountants

 

Retailers National Bank.Its Officers and DirectorsAs Servicer

 

We have examined management’s assertion, included in the accompanyingreport, Report of Management on Compliance, dated January 23, 2004, thatRetailers National Bank, as Servicer, complied in all material respects withthe administration and servicing requirements of Article III, Article IV, andSection 8.8 of the Amended and Restated Pooling and Servicing Agreement, datedas of April 28, 2000, and the applicable provisions of the Series 1998-1Supplement, dated as of August 12, 1998, the Series 2001-1 Supplement, dated asof August 22, 2001, and the Series 2002-1 Supplement, dated as of July 2, 2002,to the Target Credit Card Master Trust, insofar as such articles, section, andprovisions relate to accounting matters. The Company’s management isresponsible for the assertion. Our responsibility is to express an opinion onthe assertion based on our examination.

 

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standardsestablished by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence supportingmanagement’s assertion and performing such other procedures as we considerednecessary in the circumstances. We believe that our examination provides areasonable basis for our opinion.

 

In our opinion, management’s assertion referred to above is fairlystated, in all material respects.

 

January 23, 2004

 

 

A Member Practice ofErnst & Young Global
§ 524.1044a Gentamicin ophthalmic solution. ( a ) *Specifications.* Each milliliter of solution contains gentamicin sulfate equivalent to 3 milligrams of gentamicin.
( b ) *Sponsors.* See Nos. 000061 and 086189 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter.
( c ) *Conditions of use in dogs and cats* — ( 1 ) *Amount.* Administer 1 or 2 drops into the conjunctival sac 2 to 4 times a day.
( 2 ) *Indications for use.* For the topical treatment of infections of the conjunctiva caused by susceptible bacteria.
( 3 ) *Limitations.* Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.
[80 FR 18776, Apr. 8, 2015, as amended at 89 FR 14410, Feb. 27, 2024]
# *MMWR*: Summary of Notifiable Infectious Diseases

Print

Minus

**Note:**

Beginning with data year 2016, links to annual data from the National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System (NNDSS) are available on the NNDSS Data and Statistics web page at https://www.cdc.gov/nndss/data-statistics/index.html. The web page also has links to historical reports and information to help guide readers in their interpretation of these data.

 
        - Annual Notifiable Diseases Tables and Figure, 2016 and later
        - Summary of Notifiable Diseases, United States, 2015
        - Summary of Notifiable Diseases, United States, 2014
        - Summary of Notifiable Diseases, United States, 2013
        - Summary of Notifiable Diseases, United States, 2012
        - Summary of Notifiable Diseases, United States, 2011
        - Summary of Notifiable Diseases, United States, 2010
        - Summary of Notifiable Diseases, United States, 2009
        - Summary of Notifiable Diseases, United States, 2008
        - Summary of Notifiable Diseases, United States, 2007
        - Summary of Notifiable Diseases, United States, 2006
        - Summary of Notifiable Diseases, United States, 2005
        - Summary of Notifiable Diseases, United States, 2004
        - Summary of Notifiable Diseases, United States, 2003
        - Summary of Notifiable Diseases, United States, 2002
        - Summary of Notifiable Diseases, United States, 2001
        - Summary of Notifiable Diseases, United States, 2000
        - Summary of Notifiable Diseases, United States, 1999
        - Summary of Notifiable Diseases, United States, 1998
        - Summary of Notifiable Diseases, United States, 1997
        - Summary of Notifiable Diseases, United States, 1996
        - Summary of Notifiable Diseases, United States, 1995
        - Summary of Notifiable Diseases, United States, 1994
        - Summary of Notifiable Diseases, United States, 1993

February 8, 2022
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

- Facebook
- Twitter
- LinkedIn
- Syndicate
§ 358.103 Definitions. As used in this subpart: ( a ) *Wart remover drug product.* A topical agent used for the removal of common or plantar warts.
( b ) *Collodion-like vehicle.* A solution containing pyroxylin (nitrocellulose) in an appropriate nonaqueous solvent that leaves a transparent cohesive film when applied to the skin in a thin layer.
( c ) *Plaster vehicle.* A fabric, plastic, or other suitable backing material in which medication is usually incorporated for topical application to the skin.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

July Term 2014

DAYNA BOLERA,

Appellant,

v.

JOHN PAPA, ROYAL PALM MEDICAL, INC., 

PT CENTERS OF FLORIDA, INC., a Florida corporation,

and LAJT, LTD, a Nevada corporation,

Appellees.

No. 4D12-4300

[July 9, 2014]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; John Kastrenakes, Judge; L.T. Case Nos. 

2009CA012909XXXXMBAB and 2009CA010003XXXMBAB.

Peter J. Malecki of C. Brooks Ricca, Jr. & Associates, P.A., West Palm 

Beach, for appellant.

Elliot B. Kula, Daniel M. Samson, W. Aaron Daniel of Kula & Samson, 

LLP, Aventura, and Jared A. Levy of Dimond, Kaplan & Rothstein, P.A., 

West Palm Beach, for appellees John Papa and Royal Palm Beach Medical, 

Inc.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Dayna Bolera, appeals the trial court’s order granting 

appellees Dr. John Papa and Royal Palm Beach Medical, Inc.’s (“RPBM”) 

verified motion to strike appellant’s pleadings for fraud upon the court. 

The trial court’s order struck, with prejudice, the third amended complaint

of appellant and PT Centers of Florida, Inc. (“PTC”)1, as well as appellant’s

answer and affirmative defenses to appellees’ complaint. The court also 

entered judgment on liability against appellant but ordered a future trial 

on damages to take place. 

 

1 PTC did not file a notice of appeal or a notice of joinder. Thus, pursuant to 

Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.020 and 9.360, PTC is an appellee.
2

The portions of the order striking appellant’s answer and affirmative 

defenses and entering judgment only on liability are non-final and nonappealable. See, e.g., Walter T. Embry, Inc. v. Lasalle Nat’l Bank, 868 So. 

2d 661, 662 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Sterile Products Corp. v. Jones, 702 So. 

2d 628 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Brannon v. Johnston, 83 So. 2d 779 (Fla. 

1955). We decline to address the merits of these portions of the order. 

This court reviews an order dismissing a complaint for fraud upon the 

court under a narrowed abuse of discretion standard. Herman v. 

Intracoastal Cardiology Ctr., 121 So. 3d 583, 588 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). 

“The standard of appellate review of a ‘clear and convincing finding’ [by the 

trial court of fraud upon the court] is whether the finding is supported by 

competent, substantial evidence.” Id. (citation omitted). 

The multiple exhibits attached to the trial court’s order provide 

competent, substantial evidence to support the court’s findings that 

appellant committed a fraud upon the court. It cannot be said that the 

court abused its discretion in striking the third amended complaint. Thus, 

we affirm the portion of the order striking the complaint. 

Affirmed.

LEVINE, CONNER, and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur. 

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
October 22, 2015

Nick Whaling

7108 Anchorage Lane

Tega Cay, SC 29708

Dear Mr. Whaling:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your 

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We received your August 6, 2015 exemption filed in Docket No. FAA-2015-3396, but we are 

unable to process your request any further. Your petition does not comply with the 

requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must 

send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit 

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html. This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any 

questions you may have.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information 

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at

least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. If

you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267-2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
3
§ 522.535 Desoxycorticosterone. ( a ) *Specifications.* Each milliliter of suspension contains 25 milligrams (mg) of desoxycorticosterone pivalate.
( b ) *Sponsors.* See sponsor numbers in § 510.600(c) of this chapter. ( 1 ) No. 043264 for use as in paragraphs (c)(1)(i), (c)(2)(i), and (c)(3) of this section.
( 2 ) No. 058198 for use as in paragraphs (c)(1)(ii), (c)(2)(ii), and (c)(3) of this section.
( c ) *Conditions of use* — ( 1 ) *Amount.* ( i ) Administer an initial dose of 2.2 mg/kilogram (1 mg/lb) of body weight by subcutaneous injection. Subsequent dosages should be individualized according to label instructions based on patient response to therapy.
( ii ) Dosage requirements are variable and must be individualized on the basis of the response of the patient to therapy. Initial dose of 1 milligram per pound (0.45 kilogram) of body weight every 25 days, intramuscularly. Usual dose is 0.75 to 1.0 milligram per pound of body weight every 21 to 30 days.
( 2 ) *Indications for use* — ( i ) For use as replacement therapy for mineralocorticoid deficiency in dogs with primary hypoadrenocorticism (Addison's Disease).
( ii ) For use as replacement therapy for the mineralocorticoid deficit in dogs with primary adrenocortical insufficiency.
( 3 ) *Limitations.* Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.
[81 FR 22524, Apr. 18, 2016]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       4,367,847
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                9,751,046
<ALLOWANCES>                                   838,081
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            13,724,712
<PP&E>                                      24,958,328
<DEPRECIATION>                              10,695,273
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              95,065,047
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,408,268
<BONDS>                                     90,737,274
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            10
<OTHER-SE>                                 (4,830,134)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                95,065,047
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            45,959,646
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,699,285
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            47,967,953
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               593,158
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          11,474,720
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (17,775,470)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   132,476
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (17,907,946)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (17,907,946)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
Exhibit 13.1

Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United
States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Deutsche Telekom AG (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

The
Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2004, of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

|Dated: March 15, 2005 |  | /s/KAI-UWE RICKEName:  Kai-Uwe Ricke
Title:    Chief Executive Officer                
|--------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: March 15, 2005 |  | /s/DR. KARL-GERHARD EICKName:  Dr. Karl-Gerhard Eick
Title:    Chief Financial Officer

---



QuickLinks
§ 358.601 Scope. ( a ) An over-the-counter pediculicide drug product in a form suitable for topical application is generally recognized as safe and effective and is not misbranded if it meets each condition in this subpart and each general condition established in § 330.1 of this chapter.
( b ) References in this subpart to regulatory sections of the Code of Federal Regulations are to chapter I of title 21 unless otherwise noted.
#### The No. 4 Fidelity Building and Savings Union *v.*Byrd et al.

[No. 18,705.

Filed January 12, 1900.]

Appeal. — Transcript.— *Must Be Authenticated by Seal of Trial Court.*— The transcript of the record of the proceedings in the trial court must be authenticated by the seal of such court, or it will not be considered on appeal.

Prom the Howard Superior Court.

*Appeal dismissed.*

*L. J. Kirkpatrick, J. F. Morrison*and *T. C. McBeynolds,*for appellant.

*J. F. Elliott, W. C. Overton*and *B. F. Harness,*for appellees.

Monks, J.

"What purports to be a transcript of the record is not authenticated by the seal of the lower court. It is the imperative requirement of the statute that the seal of the court below must be affixed to the certificate, as well as *48that the clerk shall subscribe his name thereto, to present any question to this court. §§661, 7932 Burns 1894, §§649, 5846 R. S. 1881 and Horner 1897; Ewbank’s Manual, §117; 2 Ency. PL & Pr. 283, and cases cited; *Watson*v. *Finch,*150 Ind. 183; *Conkey*v. *Conder,*137 Ind. 441; *Campbell*v. *State,*148 Ind. 527; *Reid*v. *Houston,*49 Ind. 181, 182, 183; *Brunt*v. *State,*36 Ind. 330; *Sandford*v. *Sinlon,*34 Ind. 539; *East Chicago, etc., R. Co.*v. *Siwy,*23 Ind. App. 564; *Hinton v. Brown,*1 Blackf. 429. In the case last cited the trial court had adopted no seal, and the clerk had affixed his private seal. The court said: “The act of Assembly requires the court to have a seal; but what the seal is, and whether it is intended by them to be temporary or permanent, is immaterial. Their records can only be proved by their seal, and as this paper has no seal it must be rejected.”

As was said in *Watson*v. *Finch, supra:*“All appeals in this court are tried by the record. It is the only legitimate evidence to establish the rulings of the trial court upon which alleged errors are based. In the absence of the transcript being authenticated, as required by statute, it cannot be considered or treated as a copy of the original record, and therefore cannot be received or used as evidence to sustain appellant’s complaint, and the appeal must fail.”

A court speaks by its record, and unless the same is authenticated by the certificate of the clerk and seal of the court, there is no evidence that it is the record of the court. It is the duty- of an appellant in an appeal to this court to carefully examine the transcript, and see that the same has been correctly and properly prepared and certified, and' attested by the seal of the court, before the same is filed. §§661, 7932 Burns 1894, §§649, 5846 R. S. 1881 and ITorner 1897; *Miller*v. *Evansville, etc., R. Co.,*143 Ind. 570, 573; *Drake*v. *State,*145 Ind. 210, 219; *Watson*v. *Finch, supra;*Elliott’s App. Proc. §208; Ewbank’s Manual §117; 2 Ency. Pl. *&*Pr. 292-293.

The appeal is therefore dismissed.