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

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM 10-Q AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       1,068,943
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  533,387
<ALLOWANCES>                                    25,743
<INVENTORY>                                    311,811
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,386,687
<PP&E>                                         613,400
<DEPRECIATION>                                 376,975
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,141,301
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,215,820
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         28
<COMMON>                                         8,892
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,916,561
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,141,301
<SALES>                                        732,641
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               766,394
<CGS>                                          609,522
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,815,714
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              47,870
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,097,189)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,200
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,100,389)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,100,389)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.18)
        

</TABLE>
#### Margaret Morrone, Plaintiff, v Michael Morrone, Appellant. Shaw, Licitra, Esernio & Schwartz, P.C., Nonparty Appellant.

[804 NYS2d 762]

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant Michael Morrone appeals, as limited by his brief, from (1) so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Adams, J.), dated November 7, 2003, as denied that branch of the motion of Shaw, Licitra, Esernio & Schwartz, PC., the former attorneys for Michael Morrone, which *358was to establish a charging lien, and (2) so much of an order of the same court dated May 13, 2004, as denied that branch of his motion which was to “dismiss the fee arbitration,” and Shaw, Licitra, Esernio & Schwartz, EC., separately appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of the order dated November 7, 2003, as, upon determining that its retainer agreement with the defendant Michael Morrone did not comply with 22 NYCRR 1400.3, denied that branch of its motion which was to establish a charging lien.

Ordered that the appeal by the defendant Michael Morrone from the order dated November 7, 2003, is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as he is not aggrieved by the portion of the order appealed from *(see*CPLR 5511; *Carollo v Northern Westchester Hosp. Ctr.,*5 AD3d 715 [2004]); and it is further,

Ordered that the appeal of Shaw, Licitra, Esernio & Schwartz, EC., from so much of the order dated November 7, 2003, is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated May 13, 2004, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Shaw, Licitra, Esernio & Schwartz, EC., conceded at oral argument that its appeal has been rendered academic.

The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the motion which was to “dismiss the fee arbitration” brought by the defendant Michael Morrone under 22 NYCRR former part 136. The time within which Michael Morrone could have withdrawn his request for arbitration had passed *(see*22 NYCRR former 136.5 [g]), and he provided no authority for the Supreme Court to “dismiss” the arbitration. Adams, J.P., Crane, S. Miller and Mastro, JJ., concur.
Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

§ 351.25 What were the interest rates and redemption values for bonds with issue dates from May 1, 1995, through April 1, 1997, during semiannual rate periods in the first 5 years after issue date? ( a ) *Interest rates.* The interest rate for a Series EE bond bearing an issue date of May 1, 1995, through April 1, 1997, for semiannual earning periods during the first 5 years from issue date, was the short-term savings bond rate (see § 351.11 for a description of the short-term savings bond rate.)
( b ) *Redemption values.* Redemption values for semiannual accrual dates occurring on or before 5 years from issue date are calculated in accordance with § 351.28.
§ 31.3231(c)-1 Who are employee representatives. ( a ) An employee representative within the meaning of the act is— ( 1 ) Any officer or official representative of a railway labor organization which is not included as an employer under section 3231(a) who— ( i ) Was in the service of an employer either before or after June 29, 1937, and
( ii ) Is duly authorized and designated to represent employees in accordance with the Railway Labor Act. For railway labor organizations which are employers under section 3231(a), see paragraph (a) (5) and (6) of § 31.3231(a)-1.
( 2 ) Any individual who is regularly assigned to or regularly employed by an employee representative, as defined in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, in connection with the duties of such employee representative's office.
( b ) In determining whether an individual is an employee representative, his citizenship or residence is material only insofar as those factors may affect the determination of whether he was “in the service of an employer” (see paragraph (a) of § 31.3231(b)-1).
Michae l Selig , MD , FACC , CFI- H : ^ npF^- ^ 'r'' " 281 6 Orefiel d Roa d " ' "' " JA N 2 8 231 t Allentown , PA . 1810 4 :- fF> 5 .. . p , , 3qHEAR,ls| G DOCKE T U.S . DEPARTMEN TO F TRANSPORTATIO N

OFFIC E O F HEARING S WASHINGTON , D.C . Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n '"''Com'^a?nints°''^' ' ^""'''^ ' Honorabl e Judg e Ronni e Yode r V . Docket : 2010-121 1 M & R Helicopters , LLC . Responden t

RESPONDENT

S REPL YTO COMPLAINANT S RESPONS E TO TH E MOTIO N FO R MOR E

DEFINIT E STATEMEN

T ORDE R AN D SETTLEMEN T AN D NOW , come s respondent , MICHAE LB . SELIG , MD , FACC , principl e fo rM R Helicopters , LLC , (MRH ) (non-operationa l sinc e 2007 ) who m aver s an d file s th e followin g Repl yt o th e Complainant s Respons e t o th e Motio n fo rmor e definit e statemen ti n repl yt o complainant s filin g receive d Januar y10 , 2011 , Complainant s Respons e t o Orde ro fChie fAdministrativ e La wJudg e Establishin g Procedures . 1 . To dat e responden tha s no tye t bee n serve d wit h a n orde rfro m th eAdministrativ e Judg e concernin g a definit e procedura l schedule . 2 . I n complainant s abov e pleading , responden tdisagree d wit h complainant s statemen ttha tcomplainan tha s mad e reasonabl e effort s fo r settlemen tan d t o resolv e thi s cas e a tth e informa l stage . A tth e informa l stage , th e caus e o factio n cite d b ycomplainants , wa s o n incorrec tallege d claim s tha t innocen tbystande rM rBaker , wa s o n N O monitorin g progra m whil e performin g safet ysensitiv e function s o n MR H aircraf ti n 2008 . 3 . I n th e steadfast , unyieldin g position , complainant s hav e refuse d t o addres s thi s flawe d fundamenta l fac tan d shifte d th e primarycaus e o factio n o f thei rcomplain tfro m M rBake rno tbein g o n an yMonitorin g progra m (confirme d tha th e was) , t o M rBake rno tbein g o n MRHs ow n employer s i n existen t monitorin g program , despit e unde rJudicia l Estoppel s an d wit h Lega l inconsistency , complainant s ha d alread yrelease d th e Mechanic/I Awh o wa s als o foun d t o b e o n a monitorin g progra m b yhi s ful l tim e employer . Se e Motio n fo rJudgmen tt o Dismiss-Judioa l Estoppels . Leaa l Inconsistency . 4 . Therefore , quit e t o th e contrary , complainant s hav e bee n unreasonabl e an d egregiousl ychange d thei rcomplain tbasi s t o pursu e a violatio n b ywhateve rmean s neede d t o warran tthei rfrivolou s violatio n i n a movin g targe to fchangin g an d inconsisten tcolo ro fla warguments . 5 . Complainant' s hav e mad e n o additiona l confirmatio n o raddition s t o th e abov e statements .WHEREFORE , th e responden tpray s tha tthi s Honorabl e Courtwill :

1 . Hav e complainant s confir m tha tthe yagre e tha tM rBake rwa s o n a Drug/Alcoho l progra m durin g th e date s cite d i n th e complain t/o r 3 . T o dismiss thi s cas e i n th e efforto fjudicia l economy . Respectfull ySubmitted , Michae l B . Selig , MD , FACC . Dat e

3 -
#### § 27.8 Judicial review.

A final Notice of Assessment issued under this party may be subject to judicial review pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 701 *et seq.*
Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

§ 347.40 Waiver of regulations. The Commissioner of the Fiscal Service may waive or modify any provision or provisions of the regulations in this part. He or she may do so in any particular case or class of cases for the convenience of the United States or in order to relieve any person or persons of unnecessary hardship: ( a ) If such action would not be inconsistent with law or equity;
( b ) If it does not impair any material existing rights; and
( c ) If he or she is satisfied that such action would not subject the United States to any substantial expense or liability.
Order filed August 14, 2018.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 18

- 00381

- CR

____________ KENTON FRYER , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 21st District Court Bastrop County, Texas Trial Cour t Cause No. 16,029



### ORDER The reporter’s record in this case was originally due June 18, 2018

. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.1. On June 19, 2018 , this court ordered the court reporter to file the record within 15 days. In response, the court reporter sought an extension of time to file the record. The extension was granted in part through August 6, 2018. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(c). The record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record has not been filed timely, we issue the following order

.We order Margaret Raiford , the official court reporter, to file the record in

this appeal on or before September 13, 2018

. No further extension will be entertained absent exceptional circumstances. The trial and appellate courts are jointly responsible f

or ensuring that the appellate record is timely filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(c). If Margaret Raiford does not timely file the record as ordered,

we may issue an order directing the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine
the reason for the failure to file the record.

PER CURIAM
- Office Overview
- About Us
- Translated Press Releases
- Spokespeople
- Briefings
- LiveAtState

HomeOffice of International Media Engagement...About Us – International Media Engagement

# 									About Us							

Office of International Media Engagement

The Office of International Media Engagement creates and manages State Department mechanisms to ensure accurate coverage of U.S. foreign policy priorities by major international media. The office oversees the State Department’s six Regional Media Hubs which serve as overseas platforms for engagement of foreign audiences via the media — broadcast, print, and internet.

The Office of International Media Engagement programs official U.S. Government representatives on foreign media outlets, and ensures that the State Department’s international media capabilities, including the Hubs, are integrated into the interagency press and public affairs planning and execution. The office works within the Bureau of Global Public Affairs and with State Department regional bureaus and other U.S. Government agencies to develop foreign media engagement strategies in furtherance of U.S. foreign policy priorities. The office also works with the Foreign Service Institute to develop and train officers to function in positions requiring intensive engagement with international media.

## Regional Media Hubs

Brussels Regional Media HubDubai Regional Media HubLondon International Media HubMedia Hub of the AmericasAfrica Regional Media HubAsia Pacific Media Hub

## Foreign Language Twitter Accounts

@USAbilAraby – Arabic

@USAenEspanol – Spanish

@USAenFrancais – French

@USApoRusski – Russian

@USAemPortugues – Portuguese

@USAUrdu – Urdu

@USAHindiMein – Hindi

## Translations

State.gov/Translations is administered by the Office of International Media, and delivers in-language translations of Department statements and releases in Spanish, Portuguese, Arabic, Urdu, Hindi, French, and Russian.

## LiveAtState

LiveAtState is the U.S. Department of State’s interactive on-line video platform for engaging with international media on top foreign policy issues. These on-the-record “virtual press briefings” offer invited journalists and bloggers in other countries unique opportunities to engage with senior U.S. Government officials in Washington. By harnessing cutting edge web-chat technology, LiveAtState offers international media unparalleled opportunities for meaningful discussions with U.S. policymakers.

Back to Top
§ 23.43 Mediation. ( a ) Treasury will promptly refer to a mediation agency designated by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) all sufficient complaints that: ( 1 ) Fall within the jurisdiction of the Act and these regulations, unless the age distinction complained of is clearly within an exception; and,
( 2 ) Contain all information necessary for further processing.
( b ) Both the complainant and the recipient shall participate in the mediation process to the extent necessary to reach an agreement or make an informed judgment that an agreement is not possible.
( c ) If the complainant and the recipient reach an agreement, the mediator shall prepare a written statement of the agreement and have the complainant and the recipient sign it. The mediator shall send a copy of the agreement to Treasury. Treasury will take no further action on the complaint unless the complainant or the recipient fails to comply with the agreement.
( d ) The mediator shall protect the confidentially of all information obtained in the course of the mediation process. No mediator shall testify in any adjudicative proceeding, produce any document, or otherwise disclose any information obtained in the course of the mediation process without prior approval of the head of the mediation agency.
( e ) ( 1 ) The mediation will proceed for a maximum of 60 days after a complaint is filed with Treasury. Mediation ends if: ( i ) 60 days elapse from the time the complaint is filed; or
( ii ) Prior to the end of that 60-day period, an agreement is reached; or
( iii ) Prior to the end of that 60-day period, the mediator determines that an agreement cannot be reached.
( 2 ) This 60-day period may be extended by the mediator, with the concurrence of Treasury, for not more than 30 days if the mediator determines that agreement likely will be reached during such extended period.
( f ) The mediator shall notify Treasury when mediation is not successful and Treasury will continue processing the complaint.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Howard W. Lutnick,
certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Newmark Group, Inc. for the year ended
December 31, 2017 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof;

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

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all
material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of this disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this annual report based on such evaluation; and

c. Disclosed in this
annual report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting.

5. The
registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the Audit Committee of the registrants Board of Directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control
over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting.



|                     
|---------------------
|/s/ HOWARD W. LUTNICK
|Howard W. Lutnick    
|Chairman             

Date: March 20, 2018
|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                                                                                               |   |   |   |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
|                                                                                                               |   |   |   |
| /s/                William N. Plamondon, III                                                                       |   |   |   |
| William                N. Plamondon, IIIPrincipal                Financial OfficerAugust                  20, 2007 |   |   |        |

----
#### In the Matter of the Claim of In Sun Smith, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[804 NYS2d 462]

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed July 30, 2004, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant, a sales associate at a department store, was terminated from her position for stealing money from her employer. Although she initially was awarded unemployment insurance benefits, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board *974subsequently disqualified claimant from receiving benefits on the ground that she lost her employment due to misconduct. The Board also charged claimant with a recoverable overpayment of benefits pursuant to Labor Law § 597 (4) and reduced her right to receive future benefits by eight effective days. Claimant appeals.

An employee’s apparent dishonesty can constitute disqualifying misconduct *(see Matter of Olmstead [Commissioner of Labor],*8 AD3d 727, 728 [2004]; *Matter of Petrosov [Commissioner of Labor],*284 AD2d 874, 875 [2001]). Here, the employer’s human resource manager testified that following shortages at a cash register that claimant and others employees used, an envelope containing $60 cash and a credit card payment stub was placed near the register as a loss prevention measure. Although the human resource manager and claimant offered conflicting accounts as to what transpired thereafter, such conflicts in the testimony presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve *(see Matter of Alexander [Commissioner of Labor],*3 AD3d 827, 827 [2004]), and the testimony offered by the human resource manager provides substantial evidence to support the Board’s decision. Moreover, given that claimant falsely represented that she was laid off when she applied for benefits, she was properly charged with a recoverable overpayment even if her misstatement was unintentional *(see*Labor Law § 597 [4]; *Matter of Raspallo [Commissioner of Labor],*10 AD3d 751, 752 [2004]; *Matter of Spangler [Commissioner of Labor],*7 AD3d 848, 849 [2004]).

Crew III, J.P., Peters, Carpinello, Mugglin and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.