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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                              25
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      169
<ALLOWANCES>                                         6
<INVENTORY>                                        142
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   336
<PP&E>                                             353
<DEPRECIATION>                                     200
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     543
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              144
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            36
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                         265
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       543
<SALES>                                            678
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   678
<CGS>                                              423
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      598
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     6
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   8
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     66
<INCOME-TAX>                                        24
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 42
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        42
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.18
        

</TABLE>
#### Ashish Sirohi, Appellant, v Jessica Lee et al., Defendants, and Trustees of Columbia University et al., Respondents.

Submitted April 1, 1996;

decided June 6, 1996

Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from that portion of the Appellate Division order that affirmed the denial of the motion to amend the complaint, dismissed upon the ground that that portion of the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution; motion for leave to appeal otherwise denied. Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from SEC Form
10-K.  Items 1 through 22 are as of December 31, 1995.  Items 23 through 38 are
for the 12 months ended December 31, 1995.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      367,233
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                     17,176
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                          75,820
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        33,647
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 493,876
<COMMON>                                       128,638
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                            0
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                             64,499
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 193,137
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           129,048
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                  20,500
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                    8,040
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 143,151
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  493,876
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      248,590
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            14,285
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     200,434
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     214,719
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         33,871
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               1,606
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  35,477
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        11,507
<NET-INCOME>                                    23,970
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                         64
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   23,906
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                      (20,258)
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                            0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          50,822
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.49
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

667 

KA 12-02260 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CENTRA, PERADOTTO, SCONIERS, AND WHALEN, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

TROY ROSE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

 

FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (PIOTR BANASIAK OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (JAMES P. MAXWELL

OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Onondaga County Court (Joseph E.

Fahey, J.), rendered April 30, 2012. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon a nonjury verdict, of criminal possession of a weapon

in the second degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him

following a nonjury trial of criminal possession of a weapon in the

second degree (Penal Law § 265.03 [3]). We conclude that County Court

properly refused to suppress defendant’s statement to the arresting

officers, which was made without Miranda warnings. The officers’

question concerning the location of the gun did not constitute

interrogation (see People v Chestnut, 51 NY2d 14, 22-23, cert denied

449 US 1018; People v Roseboro, 124 AD3d 1374, 1375) and moreover, the

public safety exception to the Miranda rule applied to that question

(see People v Gucla, 18 AD3d 478, 479, lv denied 5 NY3d 789). 

We further conclude that the court properly refused to suppress

the gun seized from defendant’s backpack during a search incident to

defendant’s lawful arrest (see People v Smith, 59 NY2d 454, 458-459;

People v Johnson, 86 AD2d 165, 166-167, affd 59 NY2d 1014). Here,

“the circumstances leading to the arrest support a reasonable belief

that the suspect may [have been able to] gain possession of a weapon”

(People v Gokey, 60 NY2d 309, 311; see People v Capellan, 38 AD3d 393,

394, lv denied 9 NY3d 873; see generally People v Wylie, 244 AD2d 247,

250-251, lv denied 91 NY2d 946), including defendant’s statement that

the gun was in his backpack (see People v Alvarado, 126 AD3d 803, 804-

805). 

Contrary to defendant’s contention, the court properly curtailed
-2- 667 

KA 12-02260 

his cross-examination of one of the officers at the suppression

hearing with respect to a confidential informant. Defendant was

arrested pursuant to a warrant, and the existence or reliability of a

confidential informant who allegedly provided information concerning

defendant’s location “had nothing to do with the legality of the

[arrest or] search and it was, therefore, irrelevant” (People v

Lourdes, 175 AD2d 958, 958; see People v Alfone, 206 AD2d 775, 776, lv

denied 84 NY2d 1028). Inasmuch as a motion to reopen the suppression

hearing would not have been successful, defendant was not denied

effective assistance of counsel based upon counsel’s failure to make

such a motion (see People v Crespo, 117 AD3d 1538, 1539, lv denied 23

NY3d 1035).

Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. 

Entered: June 19, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
#### § 780.8 Interpretations made, continued, and superseded by this part.

On and after publication of this part 780 in the Federal Register, the interpretations contained therein shall be in effect and shall remain in effect until they are modified, rescinded, or withdrawn. This part supersedes and replaces the interpretations previously published in the Federal Register and Code of Federal Regulations as this part 780. Prior opinions, rulings, and interpretations and prior enforcement policies which are not inconsistent with the interpretations in this part or with the Fair Labor Standards Act as amended by the Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1966 are continued in effect; all other opinions, rulings, interpretations, and enforcement policies on the subjects discussed in the interpretations in this part are rescinded and withdrawn. The interpretations in this part provide statements of general principles applicable to the subjects discussed and illustrations of the application of these principles to situations that frequently arise. They do not and cannot refer specifically to every problem which may be met in the consideration of the exemptions discussed. The omission to discuss a particular problem in this part or in interpretations supplementing it should not be taken to indicate the adoption of any position by the Secretary of Labor or the Administrator with respect to such problem or to constitute an administrative interpretation or practice or enforcement policy. Questions on matters not fully covered by this bulletin may be addressed to the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC 20210, or to any Regional Office of the Division.
§ 794.138 Workweek unit in applying the exemption. ( a ) As is true generally with respect to provisions of the Act concerning compensation for overtime hours of work (see §§ 778.100 through 778.105 of this chapter, *Overnight Transportation Co.* v. *Missel,* 316 U.S. 572), the unit of time to be used in determining the application of all provisions of the section 7(b)(3) exemption to an employee is the workweek. As defined in § 778.105 of this chapter, an employee's workweek is a fixed and regularly recurring period of 168 hours—seven consecutive 24-hour periods. It may begin at any hour of any day set by the employer and need not coincide with the calendar week. Once the workweek has been set it commences each succeeding week on the same day and at the same hour. Changing the workweek for the purpose of escaping the requirements of the Act is not permitted.
( b ) By its terms (§ 794.100), section 7(b)(3) exempts an employer from any statutory responsibility he might otherwise have for a violation of section 7(a) of the Act “by employing any employee for a workweek in excess of that specified in such subsection” without paying the overtime compensation prescribed therein, “if such employee is so employed * * * by an * * * enterprise” qualifying under section 7(b)(3) for application of its provisions to such employment and if such employee receives the compensation which section 7(b)(3) requires. Accordingly, for section 7(b)(3) to apply to any workweek when an employee is employed for hours in excess of those specified in section 7(a), it must be established that in such workweek he is employed by his employer in the exempt activities of an enterprise described in section 7(b)(3) and that the compensation received by him for his work in such workweek satisfies the special pay requirements of section 7(b)(3).
**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS**

    As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our report included in this Form 10-K, into the Company's previously filedRegistration Statement File Nos. 33-40356, 33-40357, 33-52635, 33-52637, 33-58407, 33-58409, 33-59445, 333-02133, 333-04481, 333-07309, 333-15283, 333-25241, 333-25569, 333-25623, 333-32023,333-37419, 333-37619, 333-80943, 333-80945 and 333-88669.

ARTHURANDERSEN LLP

Minneapolis,Minnesota
Exhibit 99.1

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

In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report  of iQ Power  Technology  Inc.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period ended  September  30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Peter E. Braun, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  ss.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; and

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


                            /s/ Peter E. Braun
                            -----------------------------------
                            Peter E. Braun, Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 104 (Tuesday, May 30, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 34498]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-13437]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Registration

    By Notice dated February 10, 2000, and published in the Federal 
Register on February 17, 2000, (65 FR 8206), Ansys Diagnostics, Inc., 
25200 Commercentre Drive, Lake Forest, California 92630, made 
application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to 
be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled 
substances listed below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Drug                               Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phencyclidine (7471).......................  II
1-Piperid-ino-cyclo-hex-ane-carbo-nitrile    II
 (PCC) (8603).
Benzoylecgonine (9180).....................  II
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The firm plans to manufacture the listed controlled substances to 
produce standards and controls for in-vitro diagnostic drug testing 
systems.
    DEA has considered the factors in Title 21, United States Code, 
Section 823(a) and determined that the registration of Ansys 
Diagnostics, Inc. to manufacture the listed controlled substances is 
consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has investigated 
Ansys Diagnostics, Inc. on a regular basis to ensure that the company's 
continued registration is consistent with the public interest. These 
investigations have included inspection and testing of the company's 
physical security systems, audits of the company's records, 
verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and 
a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant 
to 21 U.S.C. 823 and 28 CFR 0.100 and 0.104, the Deputy Assistant 
Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, hereby order that the 
application submitted by the above firm for registration as a bulk 
manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed above 
is granted.

    Dated: May 19, 2000.
John H. King,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-13437 Filed 5-26-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-M
EX-10.12



 Exhibit 10.12 

Addendum to Payment Service Provider Agreement for Canada 

This Addendum to Payment Services Provider Agreement for Canada (this “Addendum”) is entered into as of July 22, 2013 (the
“Effective Date”) between Stripe, Inc., a Delaware corporation with offices at 3180 18th Street, Suite 100, San Francisco CA 94110 (“Stripe”), Shopify Payments
(USA) Inc., a Delaware corporation with offices at c/o CT Corporation, Corporation Trust Centre, 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington Delaware 19801 USA (“Shopify USA”) and Shopify Payments (Canada) Inc., a Canadian corporation with
offices at 126 York Street, Suite 200, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1N 5T5 (“Shopify Canada”). Stripe, Shopify USA and Shopify Canada may be collectively referred to in this Addendum as the “Parties” and each as a
“Party”. 
 RECITALS 
  

	 	A.	Stripe and Shopify USA, an affiliate of Shopify Canada, are parties to that certain Payment Services Provider Agreement, dated as of July 22, 2013 (the “Agreement”). 


 

	 	B.	The Parties desire to enter into this Addendum to extend the terms of the Agreement to the Parties’ relationship in Canada, as more fully set forth in this Addendum. 


AGREEMENT 
  

	 	1.	Definition. Unless otherwise defined in this Addendum, capitalized terms will have the meanings given to them in the Agreement. 


 

	 	2.	Application to Canada. Upon execution of this Addendum, the Territory (as defined in the Agreement) shall be deemed to include Canada, in addition to that territory set out in the Agreement. For clarity, Shopify
USA shall be deemed a party to the Agreement solely with respect to rights and obligations pertaining to the United States of America, and Shopify Canada shall be deemed a party to the Agreement solely with respect to rights and obligations
pertaining to Canada. Except as expressly modified by this Addendum or a subsequent amendment, the rights and obligations of Stripe and Shopify Canada with respect to Territory of Canada only, shall be identical to the rights and obligations of the
Stripe and Shopify USA with respect to the Territory of the United States of America and, with respect to Canada, all references to Shopify USA shall be read to mean Shopify Canada. This Addendum shall be a Foreign Processing Agreement in respect of
Canada, as such term is defined in the Agreement. 









	 	3.	Payment Schedule. With respect to the Territory of Canada only, Schedule 9 to the Agreement will be replaced with Schedule 9 of this Addendum. 


 

	 	4.	No Further Amendments. Except as otherwise set forth in this Addendum, the Agreement remains in full force and effect in accordance with its terms. 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Stripe and Shopify Canada have caused this Agreement to be executed by their authorized representatives as of the Effective Date. 

 

							
		
	Stripe, Inc.		Shopify Payments (Canada) Inc.
				
	By:		 /s/ Jon Zieger
		By:		 /s/ Russell Jones

				
	Print:		 Jon Zieger
		Print:		 Russell Jones

				
	Title:		 General Counsel & Corp. Secretary
		Title:		 CFO

			
	Shopify Payments (USA) Inc.				
				
	By:		 /s/ Russell Jones
				
				
	Print:		 Russell Jones
				
				
	Title:		 CFO
Exhibit 32.1





Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

(Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)





In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of McMoRan Exploration Co. (the Company) for the year ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Glenn A. Kleinert, as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of 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 operations of the Company.



Dated:  March
15, 2004





/s/ Glenn A. Kleinert

Glenn A. Kleinert

President and Chief Executive Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



This certification shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of § 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 158 (Tuesday, August 16, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 50719]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20759]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XA639


Fisheries of the South Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean; 
Southeastern Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR); Public Meeting

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of SEDAR Steering Committee meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The SEDAR Steering Committee will meet to discuss the SEDAR 
assessment schedule, budget, and the SEDAR process. See SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION.

DATES: The SEDAR Steering Committee will meet on Thursday, October 13, 
2011, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Crowne Plaza, 4831 Tanger 
Outlet Blvd., North Charleston, SC 29418; telephone: (843) 744-4422.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Carmichael, SEDAR Program 
Manager, SEDAR/SAFMC, 4055 Faber Place, Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 
29405; telephone: (843) 571-4366 or toll free (866) SAFMC-10; fax: 
(843) 769-4520.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The South Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and 
Caribbean Fishery Management Councils; in conjunction with NOAA 
Fisheries, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, and the 
Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission; implemented the Southeast 
Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process, a multi-step method for 
determining the status of fish stocks. The SEDAR Steering Committee 
meets regularly to provide oversight of the SEDAR process and establish 
assessment priorities.
    During this meeting the Steering Committee will receive reports on 
recent SEDAR activities, consider assessment scheduling for 2012-16, 
and discuss the SEDAR budget and procedures.
    Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come 
before this group for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), 
those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this 
meeting. Actions will be restricted to those issues specifically 
identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of 
this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the 
Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

Special Accommodations

    The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. 
Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids 
should be directed to the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council 
office (see ADDRESSES) at least 7 business days prior to the meeting.

    Dated: August 11, 2011.
Tracey L. Thompson,
Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-20759 Filed 8-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P