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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000899714
<NAME>                        UNILAB CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER>                               1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS          
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                              13,080
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       46,617
<ALLOWANCES>                                        (9,338)
<INVENTORY>                                          2,604
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    54,665
<PP&E>                                              39,751
<DEPRECIATION>                                     (22,487)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     125,919
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               29,752
<BONDS>                                            126,120
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              4
<COMMON>                                               373
<OTHER-SE>                                         (35,065)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       125,919
<SALES>                                            205,217
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   205,217
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      154,172
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   104,767
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    14,180
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  12,122
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (89,493)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (89,493)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      3,451
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (92,944)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       (2.53)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (2.53)
                          

</TABLE>
427 A.2d 255

#### Vaverchak v. Singer v. Futuro Fashions et al. Appeal of Alexander Singer.

Argued December 4, 1979.

William W. Warren, for appellant;

Robert W. Munley, for Vaverchak, appellee;

Daniel G. Flannery, for Harry Singer, appellee;

Cody Brooks, for Futuro Fashions, Inc., appellee;

Walter W. O’Hara, for Alexander Singer, appellee.

Before HESTER, MONTGOMERY and CIRILLO, JJ.*

*

 Judge Vincent A. Cirillo of the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, is sitting by designation.

Judgment affirmed.
#### § 1806.501 Compliance with government requirements.

In carrying out its responsibilities pursuant to an Award Agreement, the Recipient must comply with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws, regulations (including but not limited to the Uniform Administrative Requirements, ordinances, and Executive Orders).
#### § 217.404 Method 1 score.

(a) *General.* A bank holding company's method 1 score is the sum of its systemic indicator scores for the twelve systemic indicators set forth Table 1 of this section, as determined under paragraph (b) of this section.

(b) *Systemic indicator score.*

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, the systemic indicator score in basis points for a given systemic indicator is equal to:

(i) The ratio of:

(A) The amount of that systemic indicator, as reported by the bank holding company as of December 31 of the previous calendar year; to

(B) The aggregate global indicator amount for that systemic indicator published by the Board in the fourth quarter of that year;

(ii) Multiplied by 10,000; and

(iii) Multiplied by the indicator weight corresponding to the systemic indicator as set forth in Table 1 of this section.

(2) *Maximum substitutability score.* The sum of the systemic indicator scores for the indicators in the substitutability category (assets under custody, payments systems activity, and underwriting activity) will not exceed 100 basis points.

| Category | Systemic indicator | Indicator weight |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Size | Total exposures | 20 percent. |
| Interconnectedness | Intra-financial system assets | 6.67 percent. |
| | Intra-financial system liabilities | 6.67 percent. |
| | Securities outstanding | 6.67 percent. |
| Substitutability | Payments activity | 6.67 percent. |
| | Assets under custody | 6.67 percent. |
| | Underwritten transactions in debt and equity markets | 6.67 percent. |
| Complexity | Notional amount of over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives | 6.67 percent. |
| | Trading and available-for-sale (AFS) securities | 6.67 percent. |
| | Level 3 assets | 6.67 percent. |
| Cross-jurisdictional activity | Cross-jurisdictional claims | 10 percent. |
| | Cross-jurisdictional liabilities | 10 percent. |

Table 1 to § 217.404—Systemic Indicator Weights

[Reg. Q, 80 FR 49105, Aug. 14, 2015, as amended at 81 FR 90954, Dec. 16, 2016]
#### Sarah Hewlings *against*Thomas Hurst.

jn DOWER.

A WRIT in dower was issued returnable to *May*1817. From the return of the sheriff, accompanied by an affidavit, it appeared; that he had executed the writ, leaving a copy thereof with the wife of the tenant in possession of the premises ; that he had fastened a copy of the writ, upon the door of the house; and that the defendant, *Thomas Hurst,*lived out of the state of *New-Jersey,*in the city of *Philadelphia.*

Service of wheredefend-’ *(a)*

It was objected, that there had been no service on the defendant; no summoners were named by the sheriff; no notice to sheriff that this was the property in dispute; that the writ had not been served fifteen days, nor was it made returnable the first day of the term.

*Kinsey*for plaintiff. *Goxe*for defendant.

(a)

 Nix. Dig. 750, § 229. *Anonymous, Spen. 494. Anonymous, 1 llar. 494. Harwood vs. Smethurst, 1 Vr. 230. Derrickson vs. White, 3 Vr. 137.*

By the Court.

Such of the objections as apply to the service of a writ of dower, are applicable to cases where the defendant resides within the jurisdiction of the court But here he is out of that jurisdiction; the process cannot be served personally upon him. But he must have notice; therefore let a rule be entered, *that the said *Thomas Hurst,*do receive a declaration in this action, and plead therein within thirty days, after a service upon him, of a copy of this rule; or, that judgment for the demandant, be entered against him.

At *September*term, on motion of *Kinsey*for demandant, the following rule was entered. *“*It appearing by affidavits, that a copy of the rule taken by the demandant, in this cause, at the last term, and also a copy of the declaration of the demandant, were duly served upon the defendant, *Thomas Hurst,*on the twenty-sixth day of *July*last: it is ordered, that the defendant plead sitting the present term, or that judgment be entered for the de*430mandant.” No plea having been filed, judgment, wad accordingly entered.
RegistrationStatement
    
    Description
    
    Filing Date333-07531
    
    OM Group, Inc. Non-Employee Directors
Equity Compensation PlanForm S-8
Registration Statement250,000 Shares
    
    July 3, 1996333-47230
    
    OM Group, Inc. 1998 Long-Term Incentive
Compensation PlanForm S-8 Registration
Statement2,000,000 Shares
    
    October 3, 2000333-65852
    
    OM Group, Inc. 1998 Long-Term Incentive
Compensation PlanForm S-8 Registration
Statement2,000,000 Shares
    
    July 25, 2001333-141033
    
    OM Group, Inc. 2002 Stock Incentive Plan
and Inducement Stock Option Grant to
Joseph M. ScaminaceForm S-8
Registration Statement1,488,934 Shares
    
    March 2, 2007333-145238
    
    OM Group, Inc. 2007 Incentive Compensation
PlanForm S-8 Registration Statement3,000,000 Shares
    
    August 8, 2007
§ 19.160 Scope. ( a ) *Scope.* This subpart governs the procedures for a hearing requested by a person who has filed a notice that has been disapproved by the OCC for a change in control of: ( 1 ) An insured national bank or Federal savings association pursuant to section 7(j) of the FDIA (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and 12 CFR 5.50; or
( 2 ) An uninsured national bank pursuant to 12 CFR 5.50.
( b ) *Applicability of subpart A of this part .* Unless otherwise provided in this subpart, the rules in subpart A set forth the procedures applicable to requests for OCC hearings under this subpart.
EXHIBIT
32



CERTIFICATIONS
PURSUANT TO

SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350)



In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Cala Corporation on Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the "Report") Joseph Cala, Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, does
hereby certify, pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350), that to his 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 operation
of the Company.



Date:
 May 10, 2011                     By: /s/ Joseph Cala

Joseph
Cala

Principal
Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer



This
certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent
required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the
Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended.
#### Abraham Seckel, Respondent, *v.*Nathan Siff, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term,

November, 1900.)

Measure of damages — On failure to deliver chattels.

The measure of damages for a failure to deliver personal property is the difference between the contract price and that in open market.

*694Proof, that the plaintiff had to pay more for the goods than the defendant had contracted to sell them for, does not establish any measure of damages.

Appeal from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of New York, borough of Manhattan.

W. Klingenstein, for appellant.

M. Meyer, for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

This action was brought to recover damages for breach of contract in failure to deliver certain personal property.

There is.no evidence of damage. The fact that the plaintiff’s assignor was compelled to pay more for the goods than the defendant had contracted to sell them for does not establish the measure of damages.

The measure of damages was the difference between the contract price and. the price of the goods in open market. The evidence does not show this price.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs.

Present: Truax, P. J.; Soott and Dugro, JJ.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs.
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1
 
                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
                        -------------------------------
 
The Board of Directors
The DII Group, Inc.:
 
We consent to the incorporation by reference in registration statements Nos.
33-73556, 33-90572, 33-79940, 333-10999, 333-11001 and 333-11007 on Form S-8,
Registration Statement No. 33-80175 of The DII Group, Inc. on Form S-3 and
Registration Statement No. 333-40481 of the DII Group, Inc. on Form S-4 of our
report dated January 22, 1998, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of
The DII Group, Inc. for the 52 weeks ended December 28, 1997.
 
                                            Deloitte & Touche LLP
 
Denver, Colorado
March 12, 1998
427 A.2d 253

#### Com. ex rel., Crawford v. Holt, Appellant.

Argued March 17, 1980.

Seymore H. Johnson, Jr., for appellant;

Eric B. Henson, Assistant District Attorney, submitted a brief on behalf of Commonwealth, appellee.

Before HESTER, WICKERSHAM, and LIPEZ, JJ.

It appearing that a determination of paternity has been made pursuant to the Civil Procedural Support Law (62 P.S. § 2043.31, now 42 Pa.C.S. § 6701), but that no support order has yet been entered, this appeal is quashed and the case remanded to the court below for further proceedings. *See Williams v. Williams,*253 Pa.Super. 444, 385 A.2d 422 (1978).
From: <james.tamm@dot.gov>

To: William Charmley/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, Ed Nam/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, Robin Moran/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, <rebecca.yoon@dot.gov>

Cc: <Steve.Wood@dot.gov>

Date: 09/29/2010 02:22 PM

Subject: 2017

- 2025 NOI and TAR

- Additional Interagency Comments

The following interagency input was received verbally from Chandana and Amanda.

Time Based Learning :

Interagency commenters requested the following language be added.

The concept of time based learning is based on comments from Ford and GM. Aside from these

comments, the EPA and NHTSA do not have an empirical basis for time

- based learning. The agencie s are

looking for empirical studies that provide support for time

- based learning, and when received the

agencies will adjust time based learning discounts accordingly.

[For cost information that comes from market prices:] The agencies seek comment on whether the

market price for cars and trucks and parts include time based learning.

Economy Wide Modeling :

Eliminate all mention of GDP in the NOI and the TAR, including appendices.

Eliminate the statement that the agencies will conduct economy wide modeling for rulemaking.

Jim
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



The
undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as an officer of Fortune Rise Acquisition Corporation (the “Company”), for the
purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:



(1) The Annual Report
of the Company on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021 (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.



| |     | Date:
March 25, 2022                                 
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------
| |     |                                                      
| | By: | /s/ Lei Huang                                        
| |     | Lei Huang                                            
| |     | Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 10.1





Goodman & Company, L.L.P.
Certified Public Accountants


Board of Directors
Yorktownuniversity.com, Inc.

We consent to the reference to this firm under the heading "Experts" in the
registration statement of Yorktownuniversity.com, Inc. on Form SB-1, to be filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about June 30, 2000, and to
the inclusion in such registration statement of our report dated June 14, 2000,
on our audit of the financial statements of Yorktownuniversity.com, Inc. as of
May 31, 2000, and for the period from inception, July 19, 1999, to May 31, 2000.



/s/ Goodman & Company, L.L.P.


One Commercial Place
Norfolk, Virginia
June 29, 2000
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                   5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from the
Partnership's unaudited financial statements for the quarter ended June 30, 1999
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>                 Mar-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                      Jun-30-1999
<CASH>                                  6,671
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                             232
<ALLOWANCES>                                0
<INVENTORY>                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        6,905
<PP&E>                                      0
<DEPRECIATION>                              0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         34,332
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     128
<BONDS>                                 9,092
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                             25,112
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           34,332
<SALES>                                     0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        3,553
<CGS>                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             564
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        208
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         2,781
<INCOME-TAX>                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     2,781
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                            2,781
<EPS-BASIC>                           20.47
<EPS-DILUTED>                           20.47


</TABLE>
1

 
     Accordingly, the parties hereto agree as follows:     Section 1. Definitions. Terms defined in the Credit Agreement are used herein asdefined therein.     Section 2. Joinder to Agreements. Effective upon the execution and delivery hereof,the Additional Subsidiary Guarantor hereby agrees that it shall become a “Subsidiary Guarantor”under and for all purposes of the Credit Agreement and the Pledge Agreement with all the rights andobligations of a Subsidiary Guarantor thereunder. Without limiting the generality of theforegoing, the Additional Subsidiary Guarantor hereby:(i) jointly and severally with the other Subsidiary Guarantors party to the CreditAgreement guarantees to each Secured Party and their respective successors and assigns theprompt payment in full when due (whether at stated maturity, by acceleration or otherwise)of all Guaranteed Obligations in the same manner and to the same extent as is provided inArticle III of the Credit Agreement;(ii) pledges and grants the security interests in all right, title and interest of theAdditional Subsidiary Guarantor in all Collateral (as defined in the Pledge Agreement) thatit now owns or hereafter acquires and whether now existing or hereafter coming intoexistence provided for by Article III of the Pledge Agreement as collateral security forthe Secured Obligations and agrees that Annex 1 thereof shall be supplemented as providedin Appendix A hereto;(iii) makes the representations and warranties set forth in Article IV of the CreditAgreement and in Article II of the Pledge Agreement, to the extent relating to theAdditional Subsidiary Guarantor or to the Pledged Equity evidenced by the certificates, ifany, identified in Appendix A hereto; and(iv) submits to the jurisdiction of the courts, and waives jury trial, as provided inSections 10.09 and 10.10 of the Credit Agreement.     The Additional Subsidiary Guarantor hereby instructs its counsel to deliver theopinions referred to in Section 6.10(a)(iii) of the Credit Agreement to the Secured Parties.
2

 
     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Additional Subsidiary Guarantor has caused this Joinder Agreement tobe duly executed and delivered as of the day and year first above written.      **PENNSYLVANIA LOGOS, LLC**, a Pennsylvania
<TABLE> <S> <C>
            
<ARTICLE>        5
<LEGEND>             
This schedule  contains summary  information  extracted from  the
Balance Sheet at March 31, 1999 (Unaudited) and the Statements of 
Income and Comprehensive Income for  the three months ended March 
31, 1999 (Unaudited)  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-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          18,285
<SECURITIES>                                   291,209
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,607
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,675
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 312,776
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           51,937
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     260,839
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   312,776
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,863
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,042
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,821
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         .64
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         .64
        

</TABLE>
#### § 11.1 Authority.

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) is vested with the powers, functions, and duties otherwise vested in the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to administer and enforce the provisions of sections 10A(m), 12, 13, 14(a), 14(c), 14(d), 14(f), and 16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (Exchange Act) (15 U.S.C. 78j-1(m), 78l, 78m, 78n(a), 78n(c), 78n(d), 78n(f), and 78p), and sections 302, 303, 304, 306, 401(b), 404, 406, and 407 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Sarbanes-Oxley Act), as amended (15 U.S.C. 7241, 7242, 7243, 7244, 7261, 7262, 7264, and 7265), for national banks and Federal savings associations with one or more classes of securities subject to the registration provisions of sections 12(b) and (g) of the Exchange Act (registered national banks or registered Federal savings associations). Further, the OCC has general rulemaking authority under 12 U.S.C. 93a, 1462a, 1463, and 1464, to promulgate rules and regulations concerning the activities of national banks and Federal savings associations.

[82 FR 8105, Jan. 23, 2017]
§ 13.5 Customer information. Prior to the execution of a transaction recommended to a non-institutional customer, a bank that is a government securities broker or dealer shall make reasonable efforts to obtain information concerning: ( a ) The customer's financial status;
( b ) The customer's tax status;
( c ) The customer's investment objectives; and
( d ) Such other information used or considered to be reasonable by the bank in making recommendations to the customer.