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

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                              JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                      2,526,400
<SECURITIES>                                1,504,300         
<RECEIVABLES>                                 105,600
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           14,136,300 
<PP&E>                                      6,327,700
<DEPRECIATION>                              2,557,300
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             22,953,500
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       8,589,400
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                 14,321,200
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               22,953,500
<SALES>                                             0 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            2,906,800
<CGS>                                               0         
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 319,600 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              116,500
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             2,481,600
<INCOME-TAX>                                  171,200
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         2,310,400
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0 
<NET-INCOME>                                2,310,400
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   25.65
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   25.65
        

</TABLE>
# C_2006086EN.01003001.xml

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/30

---

Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 1 February 2006 — Endesa v Commission

(Case T-417/05 R)

(Application for interim measures - Control of concentrations between undertakings - Urgency)

(2006/C 86/60)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Endesa, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Flynn QC, S. Baxter, Solicitor, M. Odriozola, M. Muñoz de Juan, M. Merola and J. García de Enterría Lorenzo-Velázquez, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, É. Gippini Fournier, A. Whelan and M. Schneider, Agents)

Defendant:

Interveners supporting the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: N. Díaz Abad, abogado del Estado) and Gas Natural SDG, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: F.E. González Díaz and J. Jímenez de la Iglesia, lawyers)

Interveners supporting the defendant:

Application for

an order, firstly, for suspension of the operation of the Commission's letter of 15 November 2005 declaring that a concentration between Gas Natural SDG, SA, and Endesa, SA, does not have a Community dimension within the meaning of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ L 24, p. 1), and, secondly, for the adoption of other interim measures

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | Costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Costs are reserved.

---
# C_2006029EN.01001401.xml

| 4.2.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 29/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 29/14

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4035 — Telefónica/O2)

(2006/C 29/11)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 10 January 2006, 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(2) 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 website (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website 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 32006M4035. 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 32006M4035. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
§ 417.838 Organization determinations. ( a ) *Actions that are organization determinations.* For purposes of §§ 417.830 through 417.840, an organization determination is a refusal to furnish or arrange for services, or reimburse the party for services provided to the beneficiary, on the grounds that the services are not covered by Medicare.
( b ) *Actions that are not organization determinations.* The following are not organization determinations for purposes of §§ 417.830 through 417.840: ( 1 ) A determination regarding services that were furnished by the HCPP, either directly or under arrangement, for which the enrollee has no further obligation for payment.
( 2 ) A determination regarding services that are not covered under the HCPP's agreement with CMS.
[59 FR 59943, Nov. 21, 1994]
HomeMali

# Mali

93 items

        -    Press Statement  		Mali National Day	  Antony J. BlinkenSeptember 22, 2021 
        -    Report  		2021 Investment Climate Statements: Mali	  July 21, 2021 
        -    Report  		2021 Trafficking in Persons Report: Mali	  July 1, 2021 
        -    Press Statement  		State Department Terrorist Designation of Ousmane Illiassou Djibo	  Antony J. BlinkenJune 28, 2021 
        -    Report  		2021 Fiscal Transparency Report: Mali	  June 25, 2021 
        -    Press Statement  		On the Situation in Mali	  Ned PriceMay 26, 2021 
        -    Report  		2020 Report on International Religious Freedom: Mali	  May 12, 2021 
        -    Special Briefing via Telephone  		Telephonic Press Briefing on the First West Africa Joint Operations Regional Exercise	  April 7, 2021 
        -    Report  		2020 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Mali	  March 30, 2021 
        -    Media Note  		First-Ever West Africa Joint Ops Exercise Links Counterterrorism Investigators in Three Nations	  March 26, 2021 

previous page1…45678…10next page

Back to Top
Exhibit 32.1

                CERTIFICATION OF REGISTRANT'S CHIEF EXECUTIVE
                     OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350

I, Peter J. Murphy, Chief Executive Officer of Parlex Corporation (the
"Company"), do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to
my knowledge:

      (a) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period
      ending December 28, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission (the "Report"), fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (b) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
      of the Company.

Dated:  February 13, 2004

/s/ Peter J. Murphy
-------------------
Peter J. Murphy
Chief Executive Officer


<PAGE>
# Custom Report Excerpts
# C_2005171EN.01000801.xml

| 9.7.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.7.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/8

---

Action brought on 25 April 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Sweden

(Case C-186/05)

(2005/C 171/14)

Language of the case: Swedish

An action against the Kingdom of Sweden was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 25 April 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by L. Ström van Lier and S. Pardo Quintillán, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| 1. | declare that, by obstructing the private import of alcoholic beverages by independent agents or commercial transporters, which cannot be regarded as justified under Article 30 EC, the Kingdom of Sweden has infringed Article 28 of the Treaty establishing the European Communities; |
| --- | --- |

1.

declare that, by obstructing the private import of alcoholic beverages by independent agents or commercial transporters, which cannot be regarded as justified under Article 30 EC, the Kingdom of Sweden has infringed Article 28 of the Treaty establishing the European Communities;

| 2. | order Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

order Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission takes the view that Article 28 EC does not permit Sweden, generally, to obstruct the private import of alcoholic drinks by independent agents or commercial carriers. The Commission further takes the view that the obstacle to trade cannot be justified under Article 30 EC on the ground of protection of public health with reference to the following underlying reasons: (1) to limit private profits, (2) to limit access to alcoholic drinks or (3) the need to maintain age checks; in each case the measure is neither necessary nor proportional to the aim stated. The fact that the retail trade monopoly alone has the right to deal with private imports at the client's request is regarded by the Commission as an obstacle to trade, which should be assessed in the light of Articles 28 EC and 30 EC. The Swedish Government, for its part, considers that the prohibition on private import is a part of the retail trade monopoly's existence and operating method and should be assessed in accordance with Article 31 EC and that as such it cannot be regarded as discriminatory or likely to distort competition between Member States and, in the alternative, that it is appropriate and proportional.

---
HomeLibya

# Libya

130 items

        -    Other Release  		Public Release of Foreign Security Forces Units Ineligible for Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and Arms Export Control Act Assistance Pursuant to the State Leahy Law:  CY 2018 	  July 15, 2020 
        -    Report  		2020 Trafficking in Persons Report: Libya	  June 25, 2020 
        -    Report  		Country Reports on Terrorism 2019: Libya	  June 24, 2020 
        -    Report  		2019 Report on International Religious Freedom: Libya	  June 10, 2020 
        -    Report  		2019 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Libya	  March 11, 2020 
        -    Report  		Libya	  June 21, 2019 
        -    Report  		Libya	  June 20, 2019 
        -    		Libya	  April 23, 2019 
        -    Report  		Libya	  March 13, 2019 
        -    		Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs: Libya Summary	   

previous page1…910111213next page

Back to Top
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-1977

DESPINA NEUPH LUCAS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; HOUR-MAN, INC.; ALLIANT TECHNICAL; 

HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC.; STATE OF ILINOIS; JOHN JOSEPH 

MILAM; JOE PORTO,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:20-cv-00409-AWA-LRL)

Submitted: October 20, 2021 Decided: November 18, 2021

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Despina Neuph Lucas, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Despina Neuph Lucas appeals the district court’s order dismissing her complaint 

without prejudice for improper venue.

* We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Regardless of whether the district court properly dismissed the complaint for 

improper venue sua sponte, we may affirm on any ground supported by the record. See 

Kerr v. Marshall Univ. Bd. of Governors, 824 F.3d 62, 75 n.13 (4th Cir. 2016). Our review 

reveals that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the complaint because 

there was not complete diversity of citizenship of the parties and, therefore, that the 

complaint was subject to dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 

546 U.S. 500, 506, 514 (2006) (explaining that, under Rule 12(h)(3), the court must dismiss 

an action when it concludes it lacks subject matter jurisdiction); see Navy Fed. Credit 

Union v. LTD Fin. Servs., LP, 972 F.3d 344, 356, 361 n.14 (4th Cir. 2020) (concluding 

that, under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1), corporations are dual citizens of their state of 

incorporation and the state in which they have their principal place of business). Moreover, 

any applicable statute of limitations expired long before this action was filed. Accordingly, 

we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

* We conclude that the district court’s order dismissing the complaint without prejudice is 

an appealable final order. See Bing v. Brivo Sys., LLC, 959 F.3d 605, 611-12 (4th Cir. 

2020), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 1376 (2021).
REGULATORY EVALVA nON

Directorate Identifier: 2010 -NM- 116

__ -AD

Executive Order 12866: Could the AD be considered a "significant regulatory action"? I DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: Is the AD significant? YES () explain NO (X)

YES () explain NO (X) Regulatory Flexibility Act: Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES () explain NO (Xl Intrastate Aviation inAlaska: This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it <}ppropriateto include specific requirements for aircraft operated inAlaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES () explain NO (X)
#### § 136.113 Fair and uniform provision of services.

Services provided pursuant to a grant under this subpart shall be provided by the Grantee in a fair and uniform manner to all participants in the project consistent with their medical need, the policies and regulations of the Indian Health Service, and the Act.
# C_2006060EN.01000701.xml

| 11.3.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 60/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 60/7

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 12 January 2006

in Case C-311/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam in Algemene Scheeps Agentuur Dordrecht BV v Inspecteur der Belastingdienst — Douanedistrict Rotterdam (1)

1

(Common Customs Tariff - Tariff headings - Classification of consignments of rice - Additional Note 1(f) to Chapter 10 of the Combined Nomenclature - Validity - Post-clearance recovery of import duties - Article 220(2)(b) of the Community Customs Code - Interpretation - Good faith of the person liable for payment)

(2006/C 60/13)

Language of the case: Dutch

In Case C-311/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam (Amsterdam Regional Court of Appeal) (Netherlands), made by decision of 28 June 2004, received at the Court on 22 July 2004, in the proceedings Algemene Scheeps Agentuur Dordrecht BV v Inspecteur der Belastingdienst — Douanedistrict Rotterdam — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, J. Malenovský (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet, S. von Bahr and U. Lõhmus, Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 12 January 2006, in which it ruled as follows:

Algemene Scheeps Agentuur Dordrecht BV

Inspecteur der Belastingdienst

Douanedistrict Rotterdam

Examination of the first question raised has revealed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Additional Note 1(f) to Chapter 10 of Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2388/2000 of 13 October 2000.

---

(1)  OJ C 239, 25.09.2004.

1

---
#### DELAWARE, LACKAWANNA *&*WESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES.

[51 C. Cls., 426; *ante,*35; 249 U. S., 385.]

Judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff company for a portion of the amount claimed in the court below. On appeal the judgment was affirmed, and the Supreme Court decided:

When the Court of Claims fails to state what the contract was between the claimant and the Government, this court can not find it from facts which do not establish a contract as a matter. of law.

"Where a railroad undertook transportation of mail during a certain period upon notice from the Post Office Department that the compensation had been fixed for the period at certain rates but “ subject to future orders,” and “ unless otherwise ordered,” *helé,*in view of these qualifying words, that the contract did not guarantee the railroad against any change of the rates during that period. *Eastern R. R. do.*v. *XJniteé States,*129 U. S., 391.

-A reservation of the right to change the rates for mail transportation may be availed of by the United States through an act of Congress, even though the Postmaster General had no authority when the contract was made to change the rates himself.

The act of March 2, 1907, directing the Postmaster General to readjust the compensation for the transportation of mail on certain railroad routes carrying certain average weights of mail per day, did not require reweighing.

Mr. Justice Holmes

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court April 14, 1919.
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Deputy Secretary Sherman’s Meeting with UK Foreign Secretary Cleverly and FCDO Parliamentary Under Secretary Rutley

# 									Deputy Secretary Sherman’s Meeting with UK Foreign Secretary Cleverly and FCDO Parliamentary Under Secretary Rutley							

Readout

Office of the Spokesperson

December 5, 2022

The below is attributable to Spokesperson Ned Price:

Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman met with UK Foreign Secretary James Cleverly and Foreign, Commonwealth, and Development Office Parliamentary Under Secretary David Rutley today in London. The Deputy Secretary and Foreign Secretary reaffirmed U.S. support for the strong bilateral relationship and discussed ongoing cooperation to support Ukraine in the face of Russia’s war of aggression. The Deputy Secretary and Parliamentary Under Secretary also discussed the Northern Ireland Protocol, and the Deputy Secretary urged continued expeditious negotiations with the EU to reach a solution on implementation that preserves the gains of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement.

Tags

Bureau of European and Eurasian AffairsDeputy Secretary TripDeputy Secretary of StateOffice of the SpokespersonUnited Kingdom

Back to Top
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

         WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE CFO PURSUANT TO 18 S.S.C. SECTION 1350


                            CERITFICATION 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 PurchaseSoft, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending November 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Kevin A. Yanoscik, Secretary and Treasurer of the Company, certify, solely for
the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec.
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; and

         2.       The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company as of November 30, 2004.

/s/ Kevin A. Yanoscik
----------------------------

Kevin A. Yanoscik,
Secretary, Treasurer and CFO
Dated December 22, 2006
Government Regulatory

Impact Model

8/29/2006 

PRICE PER YEAR

0

200400600800

1,0001,200

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 

$ / unit 

____________ 

I 

...-------.,/_ -----+--------+-----...., -
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 21

- 00004

- CV

S COTT T RUITT

, Appellant

V

.

J ANET H ATFIELD

, AS AN INDIVIDUAL ; J ANET H ATFIELD

, AS TRUSTEE OF THE

T RUST OF D ELORIS H ATFIELD ; A ND J ANET H ATFIELD

, AS THE EXECUTOR

OF THE E STATE OF D ELORIS

H ATFIELD , Appellee §

§

§

§ O n Appeal from the Probate Court

of Denton County (

PR

- 2018

- 01016

- 01 )

December 2, 2021

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Walker

JUDGMENT

This court has considered th e re cord on appeal in this case and holds that there

was no rev ers ible error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment

of the trial court is affirmed.

It is further ordered that appellant Scott Truitt shall bear the costs of this

app eal, for which let execution issue.SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Br ian Walker Justice Brian Walker
#### H. L. SMITH, INC. v. Honorable Thomas J. LeBLANC, Clerk of Court, Parish of West Baton Rouge, and Metal Service Corp.

No. 66877.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 14, 1980.

In re Metal Service Corp., applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit. Parish of West Baton Rouge. No. 13,066.

Writ denied.
Editorial Note on Part 414
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 414 appear at 60 FR 50442, Sept. 29, 1995, and 60 FR 53877, Oct. 18, 1995.

§ 414.56 Payment for nurse practitioners' and clinical nurse specialists' services. ( a ) *Rural areas.* For services furnished beginning January 1, 1992 and ending December 31, 1997, allowed amounts for the services of a nurse practitioner or a clinical nurse specialist in a rural area (as described in section 1861(s)(2)(K)(iii) of the Act) may not exceed the following limits: ( 1 ) For services furnished in a hospital (including assistant-at-surgery services), 75 percent of the physician fee schedule amount for the service.
( 2 ) For all other services, 85 percent of the physician fee schedule amount for the service.
( b ) *Non-rural areas.* For services furnished beginning January 1, 1992 and ending December 31, 1997, allowed amounts for the services of a nurse practitioner or a clinical nurse specialist in a nursing facility may not exceed 85 percent of the physician fee schedule amount for the service.
( c ) *Beginning January 1, 1998.* For services (other than assistant-at-surgery services) furnished beginning January 1, 1998, allowed amounts for the services of a nurse practitioner or clinical nurse specialist may not exceed 85 percent of the physician fee schedule amount for the service. For assistant-at-surgery services, allowed amounts for the services of a nurse practitioner or clinical nurse specialist may not exceed 85 percent of the physician fee schedule amount that would be allowed under the physician fee schedule if the assistant-at-surgery service were furnished by a physician.
[63 FR 58911, Nov. 2, 1998]