alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 13








Annual
Report to Shareholders





The
following shareholder information was not previously provided in the Annual
Report on Form 10-K:





Corporate
Offices


The
Wilber Corporation


245 Main
Street


P.O. Box
430


Oneonta,
New York 13820





Annual Meeting of
Shareholders


The
annual meeting of The Wilber Corporation will be held on April 24, 2009 at 10:00
a.m. at the Holiday Inn Oneonta, 5206 State Highway 23, Oneonta, New York
13820.





Annual Report on Form
10-K


For the
2008 fiscal year, The Wilber Corporation will file an Annual Report on Form 10-K
with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Form 10-K is available on the
World Wide Web as part of the SEC EDGAR database at www.sec.gov.





Shareholders
may also obtain a copy free of charge by writing to The Wilber Corporation, 245
Main Street, Oneonta, New York, Attention: Secretary or printing a copy from the
following website: www.cfpproxy.com/5458








Stock Transfer Agent &
Registrar


Shareholders
wishing to change their name, address or ownership of stock, or to report lost
certificates or to consolidate accounts should contact the Company's stock
registrar and transfer agent directly at:


Registrar
& Transfer Company


10
Commerce Drive


Cranford,
New Jersey 07016-3572


(800)
368-5948





Regulatory
Counsel


Hinman,
Howard & Kattell, LLP


106
Corporate Park Drive, Suite 317


White
Plains, New York 10604





Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm


KPMG
LLP


515
Broadway


Albany,
New York 12207





Directors and Executive
Officers





Board of
Directors


Brian R.
Wright, Chairman


Alfred S.
Whittet, Vice Chairman


Douglas
C. Gulotty, President and Chief Executive Officer


Mary C.
Albrecht


Olon T.
Archer


Thomas J.
Davis


Joseph P.
Mirabito


James L.
Seward


Geoffrey
A. Smith


David F.
Wilber, III





Executive
Officers


Joseph E.
Sutaris, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and
Secretary
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsEstimation of wing nonlinear aerodynamic characteristics at supersonic speedsA computational system for estimation of nonlinear aerodynamic characteristics of wings at supersonic speeds was developed and was incorporated in a computer program. This corrected linearized theory method accounts for nonlinearities in the variation of basic pressure loadings with local surface slopes, predicts the degree of attainment of theoretical leading edge thrust, and provides an estimate of detached leading edge vortex loadings that result when the theoretical thrust forces are not fully realized.Document ID19810001496Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Publication (TP)AuthorsCarlson, H. W.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Mack, R. J.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 4, 2013Publication DateNovember 1, 1980Subject CategoryAerodynamicsReport/Patent NumberNASA-TP-1718L-13589Accession Number81N10004Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 505-31-43-01Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19810001496.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
#### Anne H. SKINNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 00-35175.

D.C. No. CV-97-449-JKS.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 12, 2001 1

Decided Feb. 22, 2001.

*479Before LEAVY, THOMAS, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

1

. The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Thus, to the extent Skinner requests oral argument, that request is denied.

MEMORANDUM2

Anne H. Skinner appeals pro se the district court’s order denying her second motion to reconsider summary judgment for defendant in Skinner’s action alleging medical malpractice under the Federal Tort Claims Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

We lack 'jurisdiction to address Skinner’s contentions regarding the merits of the district court’s original entry of judgment because Skinner failed to file a notice of appeal within 60 days of the district court’s order denying her first motion to reconsider. Accordingly, by order dated June 27, 2000, the scope of Skinner’s appeal was limited to denial of her second motion for reconsideration.

“An untimely motion for reconsideration is construed as a motion based on Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b).” *Mt. Graham Red Squirrel v. Madigan,*954 F.2d 1441, 1463 n. 35 (9th Cir.1992). Denial of such a motion is reviewed for abuse of discretion. *See School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5*F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir.1993). Because Skinner failed to demonstrate mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, or any other basis for relief from judgment, the district court did not abuse *480its discretion by denying her motion to reconsider. *See id.*at 1262-63.

AFFIRMED.

2

. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### Marion Tom BUSS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. V-487.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Dec. 5, 1974.

Richard W. Ervin, III, Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and A. S. Johnston, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

SPECTOR, Acting Chief Judge.

Appellant was charged by a two-count information with assault with intent to commit murder in the first degree and unlawfully carrying a concealed firearm. Appellant pled guilty to the offense of carrying a concealed firearm and was sentenced to eighteen months imprisonment with appropriate credit for time served in the county jail awaiting trial. The more serious crime, assault with intent to commit murder in the first degree, which was charged in the first count was nolle prossed by the State in consideration of appellant’s guilty plea to the concealed firearm charge.

By this appeal, it is contended that the trial court erroneously accepted a guilty plea to the carrying a concealed firearm count inasmuch as the record reflects that the firearm in question was being carried in appellant’s own home. Appellant relies on French v. State, 279 So.2d 317 (Fla.App.1973), and Peoples v. State, 287 So.2d 63 (Fla.1973). In French, supra, the court held that it was not an offense to carry a concealed firearm in one’s own home. In Peoples, supra, the court held it was not an offense to carry a concealed firearm while seated upon a bench immediately outside one’s own place of business.

In the case at bar, the record indicates that appellant Russ committed the purportedly criminal conduct in his own home. It goes without question then that applying the principle of French v. State and Peoples v. State, referred to above, appellant’s conviction cannot stand and must be reversed.

We express no opinion, as the point is not now before us, as to the propriety of appellant being tried on the charge which was nolle prossed.

Reversed.

BOYER and McCORD, JJ., concur.
No. 07-16-00214-CV

Kyle Anderson, M.D.

 Appellant

v.

Suzanne Stiniker, as Administrator of 

the Estate of Mikel Stone, and as 

Guardian of the Person and 

Estate of Whitley Taylor Stone, 

and Erek Mikel Stone

 Appellees

§

§

§

§

From the 72nd District Court 

 of Lubbock County

July 26, 2017

Opinion by Justice Pirtle

J U D G M E N T

Pursuant to the opinion of the Court dated July 26, 2017, it is ordered, adjudged 

and decreed that the order of the trial court be reversed and this cause is remanded to 

the trial court.

It is further ordered that appellees pay all costs in this behalf expended for which 

let execution issue.

It is further ordered that this decision be certified below for observance.

o O o
§ 415.55 General payment rules. ( a ) *Allowable costs.* Except as specified otherwise in §§ 413.102 of this chapter (concerning compensation of owners), 415.60 (concerning allocation of physician compensation costs), and 415.162 (concerning payment for physician services furnished to beneficiaries in teaching hospitals), costs a provider incurs for services of physicians are allowable only if the following conditions are met: ( 1 ) The services do not meet the conditions in § 415.102(a) regarding fee schedule payment for services of physicians to a beneficiary in a provider.
( 2 ) The services include a surgeon's supervision of services of a qualified anesthetist, but do not include physician availability services, except for reasonable availability services furnished for emergency rooms and the services of standby surgical team physicians.
( 3 ) The provider has incurred a cost for salary or other compensation it furnished the physician for the services.
( 4 ) The costs incurred by the provider for the services meet the requirements in § 413.9 of this chapter regarding costs related to patient care.
( 5 ) The costs do not include supervision of interns and residents unless the provider elects reasonable cost payment as specified in § 415.160, or any other costs incurred in connection with an approved GME program that are payable under §§ 413.75 through 413.83 of this chapter.
( b ) *Allocation of allowable costs.* The provider must follow the rules in § 415.60 regarding allocation of physician compensation costs to determine its costs of services.
( c ) *Limits on allowable costs.* The intermediary must apply the limits on compensation set forth in § 415.70 to determine its payments to a provider for the costs of services.
[60 FR 63178, Dec. 8, 1995, as amended at 70 FR 47490, Aug. 12, 2005]
HomeEEO/No FEAR Act & Whistleblower Protection Acts...NO FEAR Act For 4th Quarter 2018

# 									NO FEAR Act For 4th Quarter 2018							

Office of Civil Rights

December 20, 2018

						Download 4th quarter												[359 KB]

**Equal Employment Opportunity DataPosted****Pursuant to the No Fear Act:**

**HQ/SOCR (and below)****For 4th Quarter 2018 for period ending September 30, 2018**
# C_2006048EN.01000702.xml

| 25.2.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/7

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Grand Chamber)

of 10 January 2006

in Case C-302/04, Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Városi Bíróság Ynos kft v János Varga (1)

1

(Article 234 EC - Directive 93/13/EEC - Consumers - Unfair terms - National legislation adapted to comply with the directive after conclusion by a non-member State of an association agreement with the European Communities and before that State acceded to the European Union - Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

(2006/C 48/14)

Language of the case: Hungarian

In Case C-302/04; reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Szombathelyi Városi Bíróság (Hungary), made by decision of 10 June 2004, received at the Court on 14 July 2004, in the proceedings between Ynos kft and János Varga — the Court (Grand Chamber), composed of V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, A. Rosas, K. Schiemann and J. Makarczyk, Presidents of Chambers, C. Gulmann, A. La Pergola, K. Lenaerts, P. Kūris, E. Juhász, G. Arestis, M. Ilešič (Rapporteur) and A. Ó Caoimh, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; B. Fülöp, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 10 January 2006, the operative part of which is as follows:

In circumstances such as those of the dispute in the main proceedings, the facts of which occurred prior to the accession of a State to the European Union, the Court of Justice does not have jurisdiction to answer the first and second questions.

---

(1)  OJ C 251 of 09.10.2004.

1

---
# C_2006121EN.01000301.xml

| 20.5.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 121/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 121/3

---

Appeal brought on 10 February 2006 by Soffass SpA against the judgment delivered on 23 November 2005 in Case T-396/04 Soffass SpA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM)

(Case C-92/06 P)

(2006/C 121/05)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Soffass SpA (represented by: V. Bilardo, C. Bacchini and M. Mazzitelli, Avvocati)

Appellant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings: Sodipan SCA, intervener

Form of order sought

| — | Set aside the judgment under appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the judgment under appeal.

| — | Grant the forms of order sought by the appellant in the proceedings at first instance and annul the decision of the OHIM First Board of Appeal of 16 July 2004 in Case R0699/2003-1. |
| --- | --- |

—

Grant the forms of order sought by the appellant in the proceedings at first instance and annul the decision of the OHIM First Board of Appeal of 16 July 2004 in Case R0699/2003-1.

| — | Order OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant claims that the judgment under appeal was given contrary to Article 8(1)(b) and (2)(a)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), which provides that ‘... the trade mark applied for shall not be registered if because of its identity with or similarity to the earlier trade mark and the identity or similarity of the goods or services covered by the trade marks there exists a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public in the territory in which the earlier trade mark is protected ...’. The court has in fact misapplied the concept of the likelihood of confusion, as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Communities.

1

According to the appellant, the trade marks which are the subject of the present dispute are not likely to be confused with each other in view of the clear phonetic, visual, graphic and conceptual differences.

---

(1)  OJ L 11, 14/01/1994, p. 1.

1

---
***EXHIBIT
      32.1***





**CERTIFICATION**





*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 Auto Underwriters of America, Inc.
      (the
“Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Dean
      Antonis, as Principal Executive Officer of the Company hereby certifies,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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) or Section
                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.





/s/
                Dean AntonisDean
                AntonisPresident
                (Principal Executive Officer)Date: February
                20, 2007











This
      certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 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.
#### Robert HAAKENSTAD, Appellant, v. Joseph A. OSBORNE, Appellee.

No. 80-1269.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Sept. 2, 1981.

Robert A. Brown and Richard L. Polin, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Andrew L. Siegel of Schlichte, Carbo & Platt, P. A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a final judgment dismissing appellant’s suit with prejudice. We reverse.

Appellant brought an action in 1979 against appellee for damages arising out of the non-payment of a promissory note. Trial was set for February 5, 1980, but apparently neither appellant nor his attorney appeared when the case was called. The parties agree that the trial court did not enter an order on February 5, 1980, and that the only record of what transpired is a notation by the court clerk that the trial court announced: “a dismissal of instant cause for lack of prosecution.” Thereafter, appellant filed an amended motion to reinstate cause and set final hearing. Appellee filed a motion to dismiss with prejudice based upon appellant’s failure to appear at trial. Both motions were noticed for hearing at the same time. After the hearing the trial court denied appellant’s motion, but did not rule upon appellee’s motion.

In March 1980, appellant filed an identical action for damages and the case was assigned to a different trial judge. Appel-lee moved to dismiss with prejudice on the ground of res judicata. The trial judge agreed with appellee and entered a final order of dismissal with prejudice. This appeal of that order followed.

We reverse on the ground that no final order has been entered in the first case. The clerk’s notation in the action commenced in 1979 was certainly not an order and the trial court’s subsequent order in that case did not dismiss the action with or without prejudice. Until such time as a final order is entered in the first case and a determination is made of the nature of dismissal, res judicata does not attach.

REVERSED.

ANSTEAD, GLICKSTEIN and HURLEY, JJ., concur.
#### James D. CARNLEY, Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Florida, Respondent.

No. 45518.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 20, 1974.

Rehearing Denied June 6, 1974.

Petition denied.
# C_2006154EN.01000401.xml

| 1.7.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 154/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.7.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 154/4

---

Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 February 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Komárom-Esztergom Megyei Bíróság) — Lakép Kft., Pár-Bau Kft., Rottelma Kft. v Komáron-Esztergom Megyei Közigazgatási Hivatal

(Case C-261/05) (1)

1

(Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure - Accession to the European Union - Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC - Application ratione temporis - Article 33 - Local tax on economic operations - Lack of jurisdiction of the Court )

(2006/C 154/07)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicants: Lakép Kft., Pár-Bau Kft., Rottelma Kft.

Applicants:

Defendant: Komáron-Esztergom Megyei Közigazgatási Hivatal

Defendant:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Komárom-Esztergom Megyei Bíróság — Interpretation of Art. 33 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Prohibition of taxes capable of being characterised as turnover taxes — National rules authorising the local authorities to introduce a tax on economic operations

Operative part of the order

The Court of Justice of the European Communities does not have the jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Komárom-Esztergom Megyei Bíróság.

---

(1)  OJ C 205, 20.08.2005.

1

---
130 STAT. 430 PUBLIC LAW 114–176—JUNE 13, 2016 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 4046: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 162 (2016): 

Mar. 1, considered and passed House. 

May 26, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 114–176 

114th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 220 East 

Oak Street, Glenwood City, Wisconsin, as the Second Lt. Ellen Ainsworth Memorial 

Post Office. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SECOND LT. ELLEN AINSWORTH MEMORIAL POST OFFICE. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 220 East Oak Street, Glenwood City, Wisconsin, 

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Second Lt. Ellen Ainsworth 

Memorial Post Office’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Second Lt. Ellen Ainsworth Memorial Post Office’’. 

Approved June 13, 2016. 

June 13, 2016 

[H.R. 4046] 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with PUBLAWS
#### § 136.101 Applicability.

The regulations of this subpart are applicable to grants awarded pursuant to section 104(b) of Pub. L. 93-638, 25 U.S.C. 450h(b) for (a) projects for development including feasibility studies, construction, operation, provision, or maintenance of services and facilities provided to Indians and, (b) for projects for planning, training, evaluation or other activities designed to improve the capacity of a tribal organization to enter into a contract or contracts pursuant to section 103 of the Act. Such grants may include the cost of training personnel to perform grant related activities.
# C_2006133EN.01000101.xml

| 8.6.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 133/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 133/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

7 June 2006

(2006/C 133/01)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2789 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 144,89 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4587 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,6878 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,223 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5613 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 93,77 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,8045 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,575 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 28,195 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 262,84 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6961 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,9542 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,5145 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,67 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 37,725 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,001 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,726 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4264 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,926 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 2,0444 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0269 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 212,65 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 8,645 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 10,2527 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,257 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 11 986,49 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6769 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 67,679 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 34,351 |
| THB | Thai baht | 48,965 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2789

JPY

Japanese yen

144,89

DKK

Danish krone

7,4587

GBP

Pound sterling

0,6878

SEK

Swedish krona

9,223

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5613

ISK

Iceland króna

93,77

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,8045

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,575

CZK

Czech koruna

28,195

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

262,84

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6961

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

3,9542

RON

Romanian leu

3,5145

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,67

SKK

Slovak koruna

37,725

TRY

Turkish lira

2,001

AUD

Australian dollar

1,726

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4264

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,926

NZD

New Zealand dollar

2,0444

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0269

KRW

South Korean won

1 212,65

ZAR

South African rand

8,645

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

10,2527

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,257

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

11 986,49

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6769

PHP

Philippine peso

67,679

RUB

Russian rouble

34,351

THB

Thai baht

48,965

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---