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


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          23,802
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       4,148,832
<OTHER-SE>                                     (4,172,634)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   (32,511)
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        

</TABLE>
#### § 137.418 How does an Indian Tribe know where and when to file its appeal from decisions made by IHS?

Every decision in any of the areas listed in § 137.415 must contain information which shall tell the Indian Tribe where and when to file the Indian Tribe's appeal. Each decision shall include the following statement:

Within 30 days of the receipt of this decision, you may request an informal conference under 42 CFR 137.421, or appeal this decision under 42 CFR 137.425 to the Interior Board of Indian Appeals (IBIA). Should you decide to appeal this decision, you may request a hearing on the record. An appeal to the IBIA under 42 CFR 137.425 shall be filed with the IBIA by certified mail or by hand delivery at the following address: Board of Indian Appeals, U.S. Department of the Interior, 801 North Quincy St., Suite 300, Arlington, VA 22203. You shall serve copies of your Notice of Appeal on the Secretary and on the official whose decision is being appealed. You shall certify to the IBIA that you have served these copies.

[67 FR 35342, May 17, 2002, as amended at 80 FR 64353, Oct. 23, 2015]
EXHIBIT 32
                                   ----------

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                       AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         The certification set forth below is hereby made solely for the purpose
of satisfying the requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
and may not be relied upon or used for any other purposes.

         In connection with the Annual Report of Realmark Property Investors
Limited Partnership - II (the "Partnership") on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, Joseph M. Jayson, Individual General Partner and
Principal Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the
best of my knowledge:

        1.  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

        2.  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Partnership.




 March 31, 2009                                  /s/ Joseph M. Jayson
---------------                                  --------------------
      Date                                       Joseph M. Jayson
                                                 Individual General Partner and
                                                 Principal Financial Officer
HomeIsrael

# Israel

902 items

        -    Readout  		Secretary Blinken’s Call with Israeli Foreign Minister Ashkenazi	  April 2, 2021 
        -    Readout  		Secretary Blinken’s Call with Bahraini Foreign Minister Dr. Abdullatif bin Rashid al-Zayani	  April 2, 2021 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – April 1, 2021	  Ned PriceApril 1, 2021Washington, DC 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – March 31, 2021	  Ned PriceMarch 31, 2021Washington, DC 
        -    Media Note  		Joint Statement on the WHO-Convened COVID-19 Origins Study	  March 30, 2021 
        -    Report  		2020 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Israel, West Bank and Gaza	  March 30, 2021 
        -    Report  		2020 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Israel, West Bank and Gaza	  March 30, 2021 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – March 23, 2021	  Jalina PorterMarch 23, 2021 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – March 18, 2021	  Jalina PorterMarch 18, 2021Washington, D.C. 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – March 17, 2021	  Jalina PorterMarch 17, 2021Washington, D.C. 

previous page1…8182838485…91next page

Back to Top
#### § 596.201 Prohibited financial transactions.

Except as authorized by regulations, orders, directives, rulings, instructions, licenses, or otherwise, no United States person, on or after the effective date, knowing or having reasonable cause to know that a country is designated under section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2405, as a country supporting international terrorism, shall engage in a financial transaction with the government of that country.

Note to § 596.201: The name of each country that has been designated under section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2405, as a country supporting international terrorism is published in the Federal Register by the Department of State, and a complete list of countries currently so designated can be found via the Web site of the Department of State at *http://www.state.gov/j/ct/.*

[80 FR 34054, June 15, 2015]
HomeNetherlands

# Netherlands

149 items

        -    Special Briefing via Telephone  		Online Briefing with Uzra Zeya, Under Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy and Human Rights.	  Uzra ZeyaMarch 31, 2023Brussels Media Hub  
        -    Notice to the Press  		Secretary Blinken’s Participation in the Second Summit for Democracy	  March 24, 2023 
        -    FPC Briefing  		2023 Summit for Democracy: Progress in the Year of Action	  March 22, 2023Wednesday, March 22, 2023, 10:30 a.m. ETWashington D.C.  
        -    Report  		2022 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: The Netherlands	  March 20, 2023 
        -    Media Note  		Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs Lewis Travels to The Netherlands and Germany	  March 12, 2023 
        -    Overseas Schools Fact Sheet  		Amsterdam, Netherlands: The International School of Amsterdam: 2023-2024 Fact Sheet	  March 6, 2023 
        -    Readout  		Secretary Blinken’s Meeting with Dutch Foreign Minister Hoekstra	  March 2, 2023 
        -    Remarks  		Secretary Antony J. Blinken And Dutch Foreign Minister Wopke Hoekstra Before Their Meeting	  Antony J. BlinkenMarch 2, 2023Rashtrapati Bhavan Cultural CenterNew Delhi, India 
        -    Report  		Country Reports on Terrorism 2021: The Netherlands	  February 27, 2023 
        -    Media Note  		Joint Statement of the United States of America and the Netherlands on Cooperation in  Quantum Information Science and Technology	  February 16, 2023 

previous page123456…15next page

Back to Top
#### § 137.48 What is the effect of incorporating a Title I provision into a compact or funding agreement?

The incorporated Title I provision shall have the same force and effect as if it were set out in full in Title V.
<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 FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1997 AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<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>                               15,909,241
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               296,853
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                12,000
<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>
# C_2005206EN.01000501.xml

| 23.8.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 206/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.8.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 206/5

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3895 — PHL/PEL)

(2005/C 206/06)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 16 August 2005, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3895. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3895. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
# C_2005193EN.01002602.xml

| 6.8.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 193/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.8.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 193/26

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 7 June 2005

in Case T-316/03, Münchener Rückversicherungs-Gesellschaft AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Word mark MunichFinancialServices - Absolute ground of refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2005/C 193/43)

Language of the case: German

In Case T-316/03: Münchener Rückversicherungs-Gesellschaft AG, established in Munich (Germany), represented by G. Würtenberger and R. Kunze, lawyers, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: D. Schennen and G. Schneider) — Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 June 2003 (Case R 337/2002-4), regarding an application for registration of the Community word mark MunichFinancialServices — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of M. Vilaras, President, M. E. Martins Ribeiro and K. Jürimäe, Judges; C. Kristensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 7 June 2005, in which it:

| 1. | Dismisses the application; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application;

| 2. | Orders the applicant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 289 of 29.11.2003.

1

---
HomeNigeria

# Nigeria

203 items

        -    DSS Articles  		Nigeria SPEAR Team Protects U.S. Diplomats During Unrest in Lagos	  January 6, 2021 
        -    		Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs: Nigeria Summary	   
        -    Funding Opportunity Announcement  		FY20 DRL Security and Human Rights Request for Statements of Interest: Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Mali, Nigeria	  December 2, 2020 
        -    Report  		2020 END Wildlife Trafficking Report	  October 26, 2020 
        -    		Victor Fred Udoh	  September 27, 2020 
        -    Report  		2020 Investment Climate Statements: Nigeria	  September 8, 2020 
        -    Report  		2020 Trafficking in Persons Report: Nigeria	  June 25, 2020 
        -    Report  		Country Reports on Terrorism 2019: Nigeria	  June 24, 2020 
        -    Report  		2019 Report on International Religious Freedom: Nigeria	  June 10, 2020 
        -    Report  		2019 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Nigeria	  March 11, 2020 

previous page1…1516171819…21next page

Back to Top
#### S. Olin Hardy, Respondent, *v.*Clifford F. Eagle, Appellant.

(City Court of New York, General Term,

April, 1898.)

Husband and wife — Abandonment — Necessaries.

Where a husband abandons his wife and minor children and fails to support them, she has a right to bind his credit for all necessaries supplied for her and their use.

Appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict.

Albert W. Seaman, for appellant.

Willis B. Dowd, for respondent.

Fitzsimons, Ch. J.

The plaintiff a physician, rendered professional services to defendant’s wife and minor son; at the time of the rendition of such services defendant and his wife were living apart; upon the trial it was claimed by defendant that his wife had deserted him and compelled him to leave her home. The testimony of defendant’s wife showed that defendant had abandoned her, leaving her no means for support and that he failed toi supply the necessaries of life; certainly it was the duty of defendant to furnish his wife and minor children with all necessary food, clothing, medical services, home and other essentials of life.

This duty continued until death, or the law absolved him. The law would free him from the performance 'of this obligation in case his wife, without sufficient cause left him.

If he left her she had a right to bind his credit for all necessaries supplied her for her own’ use and the use of their minor children. Therefore, in this action if plaintiff succeeded in establishing the fact that the defendant had abandoned his wife and failed to furnish her with necessaries 'which as before stated included doctor’s services he had a right to recover from defendant the value of such services.

Hpon the question of the abandonment of his wife by the de^ fendant there was considerable conflict of testimony, but we think that the- jury were justified in finding that the defendant was at fault, that he, and not his wife, was the wrongdoer, and that he had abandoned her and failed to provide her with any means.

*442Having so found, of course, plaintiff was entitled to the value of the services rendered defendant’s wife and minor son.

Finding no error, the judgment must be affirmed, with costs.

O’Dwyeb, J., concurs.

Judgment .affirmed, with costs.
# C_2005205EN.01002003.xml

| 20.8.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 205/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.8.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/20

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 22 June 2005

in Case T-19/04, Metso Paper Automation Oy v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Word mark PAPERLAB - Absolute ground for refusal of registration - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Descriptive sign)

(2005/C 205/36)

Language of the case: English

In Case T-19/04, Metso Paper Automation Oy, established in Helsinki (Finland), represented by J. Tanhuanpää, lawyer, against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (agent: S. Laitinen) — action against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 November 2003 (Case R 842/2002-1) concerning an application for registration of the Community word mark PAPERLAB, the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of H. Legal, President, P. Mengozzi and I. Wiszniewska-Białecka, Judges; B. Pastor, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 22 June 2005, in which it:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the applicant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 71 of 20.3.2004

1

---
§ 124.508 Cessation of uncompensated services. ( a ) *Facilities not certified under § 124.513 , § 124.514 , § 124.515 , § 124.516 , or § 124.517 .* Where a facility, other than a facility certified under § 124.513, § 124.514, § 124.515, § 124.516, or § 124.517, has maintained the records required by § 124.510(a) and determines based thereon that it has met its annual compliance level for the fiscal year or the appropriate level for the period specified in its allocation plan, it may, for the remainder of that year or period: ( 1 ) Cease providing uncompensated services;
( 2 ) Cease providing individual notices in accordance with § 124.504(c);
( 3 ) Remove the posted notices required by § 124.504(b); and
( 4 ) Post an additional notice stating that it has satisfied its obligation for the fiscal year or appropriate period and when additional uncompensated services will be available.
( b ) *Facilities certified under § 124.514 .* Where a facility certified under § 124.514 has maintained the records required by § 124.510(c) and determines based thereon that it has met its compliance level, under § 124.514(d), for the fiscal year, it may, for the remainder of the fiscal year: ( 1 ) Cease providing uncompensated services; and
( 2 ) Discontinue providing notice pursuant to § 124.514(b)(2).
[52 FR 46031, Dec. 3, 1987, as amended at 59 FR 44639, Aug. 30, 1994; 66 FR 49266, Sept. 26, 2001]
#### Norman COHEN, Appellant, v. COMMODORE PLAZA AT CENTURY 21 CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., a Florida Corporation, Appellee.

No. 78-1198.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 6, 1979.

Rehearing Denied April 4, 1979.

*614Frates, Floyd, Pearson, Stewart, Richman & Greer and Ronald Brenner, Miami, for appellant.

Joseph S. Paglino, Miami, for appellee.

Before HENDRY and SCHWARTZ, JJ., and CHARLES CARROLL (Ret.), Associate Judge.

SCHWARTZ, Judge.

The summary judgment under review denied the appellant’s claim, based upon a written agreement for indemnification, for the attorney’s fees it expended in defense of an action in the federal district court. Although it never became an actual party to the federal case, the interests of the appellee-condominium association were obviously aligned with those of the plaintiffs, who were individual unit owners and who were suing the present appellant, the developer-lessor of the condominium’s common areas.1 The federal action, which was ultimately dismissed, sought to invalidate the lease based upon allegations, among others, that it was in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1, 2 (1970). The indemnification agreement, which forms the basis of the suit now before us, is contained in that very lease.

Under these-circumstances, we think that the trial judge’s determination was properly founded upon the strong public policy which encourages the filing of private suits under the federal anti-trust laws; and which therefore precludes awards of fees to successful party-defendants in such actions. *Byram Concretanks, Inc. v. Warren Concrete Products Co. of New Jersey,*374 F.2d 649 (3d Cir. 1964), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 916, 84 S.Ct. 1179, 12 L.Ed.2d 185 (1964); Jun*eau Square Corp. v. First Wisconsin National Bank of Milwaukee,*435 F.Supp. 1307, 1327 (E.D.Wis.1977); *Gillam v. A. Shyman, Inc.,*205 F.Supp. 534 (D.Alaska 1962). The judgment below is therefore

Affirmed.

1

. See *Commodore Plaza at Century 21 Condominium Association, Inc. v. Cohen,*350 So.2d 502 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), cert. denied, 362 So.2d 1051 (Fla.1978).