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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
                              This   Schedule    contains   summary    financial
                              information    extracted    from   the   Condensed
                              Consolidated  Balance  Sheet at June 30,  1997 and
                              the   Condensed    Consolidated    Statements   of
                              Operations  and is  qualified  in its  entirety by
                              reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                  1                 
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. Dollars                
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                   DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                      JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                        JUN-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                               1
<CASH>                                                1,482,445 
<SECURITIES>                                                  0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                         9,937,076 
<ALLOWANCES>                                            218,278 
<INVENTORY>                                           6,525,933 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     18,178,196 
<PP&E>                                               19,749,173 
<DEPRECIATION>                                        5,979,208 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       36,231,963 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                11,373,944 
<BONDS>                                               1,591,591 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                        16 
<PREFERRED>                                                   0 
<COMMON>                                                317,652 
<OTHER-SE>                                           22,471,275 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         36,231,963 
<SALES>                                              34,582,921 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     34,582,921 
<CGS>                                                20,403,329 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        36,312,570 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        296,853 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                              0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      296,853 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      (1,843,992)
<INCOME-TAX>                                          1,490,300 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  (3,305,307)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                               0 
<CHANGES>                                                     0 
<NET-INCOME>                                         (3,305,307)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                             (0.52)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                             (0.52)
                                                     


</TABLE>
40597.

#### WEST END CAB COMPANY, INC. v. COLLIER.

Decided April 7, 1964.

*556
      *Walter B. Fincher,*for plaintiff in error.

*James M. Embry,*contra.

Eberhardt, Judge.

The complaint here is that the testimony to which objection was interposed was admitted in violation of *Code*§ 38-408, providing, inter alia, that “ [A] dmissions or propositions made with a view to a compromise, are not proper evidence.”

The factual situation was as follows: The defendant's attorney was cross examining the cab company’s secretary-treasurer. The witness identified a certain letter on company stationery as bearing his signature and as being addressed to the auto owner’s insurance carrier relative to the subject matter of the suit. It was then elicited that the letter stated the company’s damages to the cab to be $60.50 for actual repairs and $20 for one day’s loss of use,1 amounts substantially less than those sued for. Objection was made on the ground that the evidence was inadmissible as a compromise offer. The objection was overruled and, on redirect, the cab company introduced the insurance carrier’s responsive letter (offering only actual damages of $60.50) and the company’s subsequent response stating in part “Please be advised that we do not care to make a compromise settlement in this matter for less than $80.50.” The first letter was never offered in evidence nor does the record show any subsequent motion to strike the evidence or motion for mistrial.

At the time the objection was made, we view the evidence as having been admissible. There was nothing in the questions or answers to indicate that the letter was a compromise offer. If the subsequent evidence had shown that the letter contained a compromise offer, or if the letter itself had been introduced *557and had shown that it was an offer in compromise, the plaintiff’s remedy would have been to move to strike the entire testimony. *Manley v. Combs,*197 Ga. 768 (7) (30 SE2d 485). Green, Georgia Law of Evidence, 32, § 12 (1957). This plaintiff did not do. The trial judge correctly overruled the motion for new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Bell, P. J., and Jordan, J., concur.*

The transcript of evidence shows the following dialogue with irrelevant parts omitted:

> “Q. What did you contend at that time [of the letter] was the damage to your automobile?

> “A. This letter said $80.50.

> “Q. And what did that represent—$80.50; how much was repairs and how much loss of use?

> “A. Loss of time $20, and $60.50 repairs.”
No. 99-6799.

No. 99-6915.

No. 99-6916.

#### In re Edwards; In re Dorrough; and In re Harris.

Petitions for writs of habeas corpus denied.
#### Maxine Reed v. W. R. Whitehead

4579

430 S.W. 2d 858

Opinion delivered September 3, 1968

*Wright, Lindsey*& *Jennings*for appellant.

*L. Weems Trussell*for appellee.

Conley Byrd, Justice.

Appellant Maxine Reed filed a complaint in the Chancery Court seeking to en*53join appellee W. R. Whitehead from acting in the capacity of “third member” of the Dallas County Board of Election Commissioners, claiming at the same time that she was the proper person to hold such office. Appellee filed an answer and counterclaim seeking to enjoin appellant from usurping the office to which appellee claimed to have been appointed.

The complaint and counterclaim, considered in all their respects, must be held to be a suit for the purpose of trying title to the office of “third member” of the County Board of Election Commissioners. We have consistently held that a court of equity does not have jurisdiction to determine questions concerning the appointment or election of public officers or their title to office. *Davis*v. *Wilson,*183 Ark. 271, 35 S.W. 2d 1020 (1931).

The judgment entered below in favor of appellee Whitehead is reversed and the cause remanded to the Chancery Court with directions to dismiss same for lack of jurisdiction, any remaining issues which might warrant a transfer to law docket having become moot by virtue of our decision of this date in *Ellis*v. *Rockefeller.*

Reversed and dismissed.
HomeDigest of United States Practice in International Law 2019...Chapter 15: Digest of United States Practice in International Law 2019

# 									Chapter 15: Digest of United States Practice in International Law 2019							

2019 Digest: Chapter 15 [832 KB]

Tags

International LawLegal Adviser

Back to Top
#### § 7.8 Delegation.

The heads of bureaus or offices and the General Counsel may delegate, as appropriate, the performance of the responsibilities assigned to them under this part.
EXHIBIT 32

                  Certification of CEO and CFO Pursuant to
                            18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
                             As Adopted Pursuant to
                Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Merisel, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Timothy N. Jenson, as
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge, that:

         (1)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) 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/Timothy N. Jenson
------------------------------
Timothy N. Jenson
Chief Executive Officer and
  Chief Financial Officer
November 13, 2003


This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to ss.906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF TRANSCEND SERVICES, INC. FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED
MARCH 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           2,481
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,148
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (163)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,990
<PP&E>                                           6,867
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (2,980)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  19,248
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,884
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          2
<COMMON>                                           206
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,863
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    19,248
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,374
<CGS>                                           10,305
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,658
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 104
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    307
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                307
<DISCONTINUED>                                    (15)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       292
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    $0.01<F1> 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    $0.01
<FN> 
<F1>EPS-PRIMARY REFLECTS EPS-BASIC.
</FN>  
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           3,602
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,477
<ALLOWANCES>                                       609
<INVENTORY>                                      2,704
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                15,995
<PP&E>                                           2,581
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,075
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  19,923
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,953
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      5,420
<COMMON>                                            49
<OTHER-SE>                                       9,501
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    19,923
<SALES>                                          5,668
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,184
<CGS>                                            3,939
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,536
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 (139)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  45
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    819
<INCOME-TAX>                                         4
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                815
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       815
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0.070
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.070
        

</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. ER09-1514-000]

                    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives notice that on September 3, 2009 at 11 a.m. (EST) and/or Wednesday, September 9, 2009 at 2 p.m. (EST) members of its staff will participate in WebEx Training sessions to review the enhancements associated with the transactions aspect of the NYISO Energy Market, specifically, Trading Hubs. Information on the training sessions is available on the NYISO's Web site at                     *https://nyiso.webex.com.*                     Sponsored by the NYISO, the training sessions are open to all market participants, and staff's attendance is part of the Commission's ongoing outreach efforts. The training sessions may include discussions relating to matters at issue in the above captioned proceeding. For further information, contact Connie Caldwell at                     *connie.caldwell@ferc.gov*; (202) 502-6489 or Jeffrey Honeycutt at                     *jeffrey.honeycutt@ferc.gov*; (202) 502-6505.                

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E9-20942 Filed 8-28-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
#### The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Kimberly Susan LANXON, Appellee.

No. 80-617.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 17, 1981.

Janet Reno, State Atty. and Theda R. James, Asst. State Atty., for appellant.

Mandina and Lipsky and Daniel W. Le-vin, Miami, for appellee.

Before HUBBART, C. J., and SCHWARTZ and BASKIN, JJ.

BASKIN, Judge.

We affirm the trial court’s suppression of evidence seized from defendant Lanxon at Miami International Airport without a warrant or probable cause to believe a crime had been committed predicated upon our finding that no valid consent to search was obtained.

The record discloses that Officer Titus asked defendant Lanxon, who was standing in line waiting to check in, if he could speak to her. She agreed but said she had to make her plane. After she produced identification, the officer asked her about a suitcase she said belonged to her and inquired whether she objected to his going through her luggage. She replied: “Yes. I want to *1195check my luggage.” The officer testified that he stated:

> ‘Okay, that’s fine. I cannot look into your luggage without your permission and in your presence. However, I believe that either your suitcase or the other suitcase’ — and I pointed to the one that was next to Mr. Ralph Gettis — ‘and/or both contain narcotics and I want to inform you that I cannot prevent you from checking your luggage. However, I will contact a Narcotics Unit at your destination and request that a narcotics detection dog sniff your luggage.’

At that time, defendant replied: “Jesus Christ, go ahead and search it, then.” A subsequent search of defendant’s suitcase revealed no drugs. The officer then inquired if he could search her briefcase, saying: “You don’t have to allow me to if you don’t wish to.” She replied: “If you have to search it.” Inside a package described by defendant Lanxon as containing bearings, the officer found cocaine.

Consideration of the totality of the circumstances, *Schneckloth v. Bustamonte,*412 U.S. 218, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973); *Bumper*v. *North Carolina,*391 U.S. 543, 88 S.Ct. 1788, 20 L.Ed.2d 797 (1968); *Bailey v. State,*319 So.2d 22 (Fla.1975); *Nelson v. State,*376 So.2d 459 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); *Taylor v. State,*355 So.2d 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); *Ferrara v. State,*319 So.2d 629 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975), compels the conclusion that defendant’s consent was not voluntary. Statements accusing a defendant of having committed a crime have been held to be coercive. *Norman v. State,*379 So.2d 643 (Fla.1980); *Ferrara v. State, supra.*Under the circumstances of this case, the officer’s statements that he believed her suitcase contained narcotics and that he would contact a narcotics unit at her destination were intended to coerce defendant into giving her consent. The officer accomplished his purpose, but under these circumstances defendant’s consent cannot be said to meet the standards for voluntary relinquishment of rights. The state failed to satisfy its burden of establishing free and voluntary consent, *Norman v. State, supra; Bailey v. State, supra.*We therefore affirm the trial court’s decision.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         272,929
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  296,063
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (11,057)
<INVENTORY>                                    790,609
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,405,585
<PP&E>                                         989,536
<DEPRECIATION>                                (850,734)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,577,680
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,337,080
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      7,000
<COMMON>                                       216,732
<OTHER-SE>                                 (13,470,341)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,577,680
<SALES>                                      1,611,658
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,611,658
<CGS>                                        1,333,024
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,333,024
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,695,575
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  (623)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              48,818
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,465,759)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (1,465,759)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,465,759)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.66)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.66)
        


</TABLE>
698 A.2d 570

#### OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner, v. Pablo SANTANA, Respondent.

No. 337 Disciplinary Docket No. 3.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

July 2, 1997.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 2nd day of July, 1997, upon consideration of the Report and Recommendations of the Disciplinary Board dated May 13,1997, it is hereby

ORDERED that PABLO SANTANA be and he is DISBARRED from the Bar of this Commonwealth, and he shall comply with all the provisions of Rule 217 Pa.R.D.E.

It is further ORDERED that respondent shall pay costs to the Disciplinary Board pursuant to Rule 208(g), Pa.R.D.E.
Document

Exhibit 4.49

AMENDMENT TO RIGHTS Agreement
This Amendment to Rights Agreement (this “Amendment”) is made as of December 11, 2020, by Amyris, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) in connection with that certain Rights Agreement dated as of January 31, 2020, whereby the Company issued and sold common stock purchase rights (the “Right Shares”) to Foris Ventures, LLC (the “Purchaser”).
In consideration of good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, and intending to be legally bound hereby, the Company agrees as follows:
The definition of “Right Termination Date” in Section 1 of the Rights Agreement shall be amended and restated in its entirety as follows: “The Right shall terminate on July 31, 2021.” 
Except as expressly set forth above, all of the terms and conditions of the Rights Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.  
The undersigned has executed this Amendment as of the date first set forth above.
AMYRIS, INC. 




By: _/s/ Han Kieftenbeld_______________
Name: Han Kieftenbeld
Title: Chief Financial Officer
December 1, 2016

Ms. Kelly Neubecker

Counsel for Namkrow Aerial Visuals

UASolutions Group, Inc.

5651 Talbot Boulevard

Cocoa, FL 32926

Re: FAA-2016-3167

Dear Ms. Neubecker:

This letter is to provide notification that we have reviewed your petition for exemption, and 

have determined that we will continue to process your petition.

As referenced in the June 22, 2016, letter posted to your docket at www.regulations.gov, we 

are reviewing pending Section 333 petitions to determine if the recently-issued regulation, 

Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems, Title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations, Part 107 (www.faa.gov/uas) will satisfy your request. We have determined that 

your request requires further regulatory relief (Tier 3), and we will continue working on your 

petition for exemption.

We have found that your petition, if granted, would set a precedent. Therefore, we will 

publish a summary of your petition in the Federal Register for public comments, if we have 

not done so already.

We will advise you of the agency’s final decision on your petition as soon as possible. If you 

have any questions regarding your petition, please contact me at 333exemptions@faa.gov.

Sincerely,

/s/

Dan Ngo

Program Analyst