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

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                       2,227,352
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               25,843,967
<ALLOWANCES>                                 6,575,715
<INVENTORY>                                  8,436,655
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            34,687,521
<PP&E>                                      11,877,772
<DEPRECIATION>                               6,281,597
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              52,707,962
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       13,191,689
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,055,871
<OTHER-SE>                                  24,213,683
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                52,707,962
<SALES>                                     58,814,672
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            58,814,672
<CGS>                                       17,962,701
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               53,867,737
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,599,642
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              4,341,777
<INCOME-TAX>                                 2,139,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,202,777
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.21


</TABLE>
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Dynasty Medical Care, P.C., as Assignee of Leonel Raoul, Appellant, <br><br>against<br><br>21st Century Advantage Insurance Company, Respondent.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Gabriel &amp; Shapiro, LLC (Steven F. Palumbo, Esq.), for appellant.Law Office of Bryan M. Rothenberg (Deepak D. Sohi, Esq.), for respondent.</p><p>Appeal from an amended order of the District Court of Suffolk County, Third District (C. Stephen Hackeling, J.), dated January 21, 2016. The amended order granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.</p><p>ORDERED that, on the court's own motion, the notice of appeal from an order dated December 23, 2015 is deemed a premature notice of appeal from the amended order dated January 21, 2016 (<i>see</i> CPLR 5520 [c]); and it is further,</p><p>ORDERED that the amended order is affirmed, without costs.</p><p>In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, arguing that it had paid plaintiff for the services at issue in accordance with the workers' compensation fee schedule. The District Court granted defendant's motion. Contrary to plaintiff's contention, defendant sufficiently demonstrated, prima facie, that it had properly applied the fee schedule and plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact with respect thereto (<i>see Zuckerman v City of New York</i>, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]).</p><p>Accordingly, the amended order is affirmed.</p><p>Marano, P.J., Garguilo and Brands, JJ., concur.</p><br>Decision Date: April 27, 2017<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                            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 Patron Systems, Inc. for the period
ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, Patrick J. Allin, Acting Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SS.1350, as adopted pursuant to
SS.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 result of operations of
         the Company.

/s/ Patrick J. Allin
--------------------------
Patrick J. Allin
Acting Chief Financial Officer
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsImprovements to the Copernicus Trajectory Design and Optimization System for Complex Space TrajectoriesThe purpose of this assessment was to develop updates and new features for the NASA Copernicus Spacecraft Trajectory Design and Optimization analysis tool (version 5.0) for application to NASA programs and projects. These updates will significantly improve the ability to design and optimize complex trajectories over multiple trajectory phases; will allow the use of unique vehicle-specific guidance, control, and trajectory strategies and constraints; and the creation of an almost unlimited number of unique user-defined capabilities. The primary stakeholders for this assessment are the trajectory design and optimization analysts and engineers, and the chief engineers and project managers for existing programs, projects, and/or tasks that involve impulsive, finite burn, and/or continuous thrust trajectories (e.g., Sun, planet, comet, asteroid, halo orbit, Lagrange point, and distant retrograde orbit). The breadth of application spans the preliminary engineering and mission design concepts and optimization, to the development of candidate reference missions and integrated mission design for vehicle system design and operation, to the design and development of flight trajectories and associated propulsive maneuvers for real-time operations.Document ID20190001055Acquisition SourceLangley Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsMurri, Daniel G.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Condon, Gerald L.*(NASA Johnson Space Center Houston, TX, United States)*Williams, Jacob*(Jacobs Technology, Inc. Houston, TX, United States)*Kamath, Anubhav H.*(Jacobs Technology, Inc. Houston, TX, United States)*Eckman, Randy A.*(NASA Johnson Space Center Houston, TX, United States)*Mathur, Ravishankar*(Emergent Space Technologies, Inc. United States)*Date AcquiredFebruary 28, 2019Publication DateJanuary 1, 2019Subject CategorySpace Transportation And SafetyReport/Patent NumberL-20994NASA/TM?2019-220247NF1676L-32243NESC-RP-15-01097Funding Number(s)WBS: WBS:869021.05.05.02.15Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightPublic Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType20190001055.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
#### § 779.8 Basic support for interpretations.

The ultimate decisions on interpretations of the Act are made by the courts (*Mitchell* v. *Zachry,* 362 U.S. 310; *Kirschbaum* v. *Walling,* 316 U.S. 517). Court decisions supporting interpretations contained in this bulletin are cited where it is believed they may be helpful. On matters which have not been determined by the courts, it is necessary for the Secretary of Labor and the Administrator to reach conclusions as to the meaning and the application of provisions of the law in order to carry out their responsibilities of administration and enforcement (*Skidmore* v. *Swift,* 323 U.S. 134). In order that these positions may be made known to persons who may be affected by them, official interpretations are issued by the Administrator on the advice of the Solicitor of Labor, as authorized by the Secretary (Reorg. Pl. 6 of 1950, 64 Stat. 1263; Gen. Ord. 45A, May 24, 1950; 15 FR 3290). As included in the regulations in this part, these interpretations are believed to express the intent of the law as reflected in its provisions as constructed by the courts and evidenced by its legislative history. References to pertinent legislative history are made in this part where it appears that they will contribute to a better understanding of the interpretations.
###### Editorial Note on Part 101

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 101 appear by USCG-2008-0179, 73 FR 35009, June 19, 2008.

#### § 101.500 Procedures for authorizing a Recognized Security Organization (RSO). [Reserved]
#### § 783.45 Deductions from wages.

Where deductions are made from the wages of a seaman subject to section 6(b) of the Act, consideration must be given as to whether or not such deductions are permitted to be made when they result in the seaman receiving cash wages which are less than the applicable minimum wage rate for each hour actually on duty during the period covered by the wage payments. Such considerations are to be based upon the principles and interpretations governing such deductions. These are set forth and discussed in part 531 of this chapter. The methods of paying the compensation required by section 6 and the application thereto of the provisions of section 3(m) of the Act, which are set forth and explained in the said part 531, are applicable to seamen subject to the minimum wage provisions of the Act.
IIA 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. J. RES. 31 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating 

to United States citizenship. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 9, 2008 

Mr. VITTER introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice 

and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United 

States relating to United States citizenship. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all 

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 

8 States within seven years after the date of its submission 

9 for ratification by the Congress: 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•SJ 31 IS 

1 ‘‘ARTICLE — 

2 ‘‘A person born in the United States shall not be a 

3 citizen of the United States unless— 

4 ‘‘(1) one parent of the person is a citizen of the 

5 United States; 

6 ‘‘(2) one parent of the person is an alien law7 fully admitted for permanent residence in the United 

8 States who resides in the United States; 

9 ‘‘(3) one parent of the person is an alien per10 forming active service in the Armed Forces of the 

11 United States; or 

12 ‘‘(4) the person is naturalized in accordance 

13 with the laws of the United States.’’. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
#### § 784.8 “Employer,” “employee,” and “employ.”

The Act's major provisions impose certain requirements and prohibitions on every “employer” subject to their terms. The employment by an “employer” of an “employee” is, to the extent specified in the Act, made subject to minimum wage and overtime pay requirements and to prohibitions against the employment of oppressive child labor. The Act provides its own definitions of “employer,” “employee” and “employ,” under which “economic reality” rather than “technical concepts” determines whether there is employment subject to its terms (*Goldberg* v. *Whitaker House Cooperative,* 366 U.S. 28; *United States* v. *Silk,* 331 U.S. 704; *Rutherford Food Corp.* v. *McComb,* 331 U.S. 722). An “employer,” as defined in section 3(d) of the Act, “includes any person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee but shall not include the United States or any State or political subdivision of a State or any labor organization (other than when acting as an employer), or anyone acting in the capacity of officer or agent of such labor organization.” An “employee,” as defined in section 3(e) of the Act, “includes any individual employed by an employer,” and “employ,” as used in the Act, is defined in section 3(g) to include “to suffer or permit to work.” It should be noted, as explained in part 791 of this chapter, dealing with joint employment that in appropriate circumstances two or more employers may be jointly responsible for compliance with the statutory requirements applicable to employment of a particular employee. It should also be noted that “employer,” “enterprise,” and “establishment” are not synonymous terms, as used in the Act. An employer may have an enterprise with more than one establishment, or he may have more than one enterprise in which he employs employees within the meaning of the Act. Also, there may be different employers who employ employees in a particular establishment or enterprise.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-19-00611-CV

Claudia Lopez

v.

HEB Grocery Company, LP

On Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 2 of Cameron County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2016-CCL-00620

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED. Costs of the appeal are adjudged 

against appellant.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

April 22, 2021
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 15

- 00024

- CV

Maria Zamarripa, as Temporary Guardian of the Estates of R. F. R. and R. J. R., minors, and Olga Flores, as Temporary Administrator of the Estate of Yolanda Iris Flores v. Bay Area Health Care Group, Ltd . d/b/a Corpus Christi Medical Center, Hidalgo County

EMS, and Hidalgo County Emergency Medical Service Foundation

On a ppeal from the 445th District Court of Cameron County , Texas Trial Cause No. 2014

- DCL

- 00910

- I

JUDGMENT
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS , having considered this cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellant.
We further order this decision cer tified below for observance.
November 22, 2016.
### APPENDIX 9E 2009 INPUT FILE

* New IM Program

- Annual OBD only > 15 Year Exemption Age

* > New Annual OBD Exhaust I/M program for Light Duty MY 1996 through 2007 vehicles <=8,500 lb GVWR

I/M PROGRAM : 1 2009 2050 1 TRC OBD I/M I/M MODEL YEARS : 1 1996 2007 I/M VEHICLES : 1 22222 11111111 1 I/M STRINGENCY : 1 20.0 I/M COMPLIANCE : 1 96.0 I/M WAIVER RATES : 1 0.0 1.0 I/M EXEMPTION AGE : 1 15 I/M GRACE PERIOD : 1 1

> New Annual OBD Exhaust I/M program for Light Duty and Mediu m duty MY 2008 and later <=14,000 lb GVWR

I/M PROGRAM : 2 2009 2050 1 TRC OBD I/M I/M MODEL YEARS : 2 2008 2050 I/M VEHICLES : 2 22222 22111111 1 I/M STRINGENCY : 2 20.0 I/M COMPLIANCE : 2 96.0 I/M WAIVER RATES : 2 0.0 1.0 I/M EX EMPTION AGE : 2 15 I/M GRACE PERIOD : 2 1

> New Annual OBD Evap I/M program for Light Duty MY 1996 through 2007 vehicles <=8,500 lb GVWR

I/M PROGRAM : 3 2009 2050 1 TRC EVAP OBD I/M MODEL YEARS : 3 1996 2007 I/M VEHICLES : 3 22222 11 111111 1 I/M STRINGENCY : 3 20.0 I/M COMPLIANCE : 3 96.0 I/M WAIVER RATES : 3 0.0 1.0 I/M EXEMPTION AGE : 3 15 I/M GRACE PERIOD : 3 1

> New Annual OBD Evap I/M program for for Light Duty and Medium duty MY 2008 and later <=14,000 lb GVWR

I/ M PROGRAM : 4 2009 2050 1 TRC EVAP OBD I/M MODEL YEARS : 4 2008 2050 I/M VEHICLES : 4 22222 22111111 1 I/M STRINGENCY : 4 20.0 I/M COMPLIANCE : 4 96.0 I/M WAIVER RATES : 4 0.0 1.0 I/M EXEMPTION AGE : 4 15 I/M GRACE PERIOD : 4 1
#### § 106.120 Noncompliance.

When an OCS facility must temporarily deviate from the requirements of this part, the OCS facility owner or operator must notify the cognizant District Commander, and either suspend operations or request and receive permission from the District Commander to continue operating.

[USCG-2003-14759, 68 FR 60558, Oct. 22, 2003]
III 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 47 

Honoring the life and achievements of George C. Springer, Sr., the Northeast 

regional director and a former vice president of the American Federation 

of Teachers. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 30, 2007 

Mr. DODD submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

FEBRUARY 15, 2007 

Reported by Mr. LEAHY, without amendment 

MARCH 23, 2007 

Considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Honoring the life and achievements of George C. Springer, 

Sr., the Northeast regional director and a former vice 

president of the American Federation of Teachers. 

Whereas George C. Springer, Sr., formerly Northeast regional director of the American Federation of Teachers 

(AFT), president of AFT Connecticut, and AFT vice 

president, was an accomplished union leader, a pillar of 

the civil rights community, a high school teacher and athletics coach, and a dedicated family man and devoted 

friend; 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

SRES 47 ATS 

Whereas George Springer was known by those who worked 

with him as a generous mentor, a conciliator, and a 

skilled problem-solver; 

Whereas George Springer, as president of AFT Connecticut, 

helped strengthen and expand the statewide organization 

to include not only teachers but also paraprofessionals 

and other school-related personnel, higher education faculty, healthcare professionals, and public employees, and 

united them around his vision of a shared destiny and a 

common commitment to quality services and professional 

integrity; 

Whereas George Springer was an AFT vice president for 13 

years and served for 4 years as the chair of the AFT’s 

human rights and community relations committee; 

Whereas George Springer cared deeply about the cause of 

civil rights, was a leader in the National Commission for 

African American Education, a board member of Amistad 

America, Inc., vice president of the John E. Rogers African American Cultural Center, and president of the New 

Britain, Connecticut chapter of the National Association 

for the Advancement of Colored People; 

Whereas George Springer was born in the Panama Canal 

Zone in 1932, attended Central Connecticut State University, formerly Teachers College of Connecticut, and received a graduate degree from the University of Hartford; 

Whereas George Springer was a union activist throughout his 

20-year teaching career in New Britain; 

Whereas George Springer succumbed on December 19, 2006, 

at the age of 74, after a long battle with cancer; and 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

3 

SRES 47 ATS 

Whereas George Springer is survived by his wife, Gerri 

Brown-Springer, 4 children, 10 grandchildren, and 4 

great-grandchildren: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate honors George C. Springer, 

2 Sr. as a dedicated and pioneering leader, and a man of 

3 generous spirit who took on tough challenges with courage 

4 and compassion. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

246 CA 13-01157 PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CARNI, LINDLEY, AND SCONIERS, JJ.

CARL TROST AND JENNIFER TROST, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS,

V ORDER
ROCKINGHAM ESTATES, LLC AND FORBES HOMES, INC., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

BROWN & KELLY, LLP, BUFFALO (KATHLEEN T. FEROLETO OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
DEMPSEY & DEMPSEY, BUFFALO (EMILY G. CATALANO OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Diane Y. Devlin, J.), entered April 17, 2013 in a personal injury action. The order granted the motion of plaintiffs for partial summary judgment pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1) and denied the cross motion of defendants for summary judgment.
Now, upon reading and filing the stipulation to withdraw appeal signed by the attorneys for the parties on February 20, 2014,
It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs upon stipulation.

Entered: March 21, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
#### §§ 1910.112-1910.113 [Reserved]
§ 825.400 Enforcement, general rules. ( a ) The employee has the choice of: ( 1 ) Filing, or having another person file on his or her behalf, a complaint with the Secretary of Labor, or
( 2 ) Filing a private lawsuit pursuant to section 107 of FMLA.
( b ) If the employee files a private lawsuit, it must be filed within two years after the last action which the employee contends was in violation of the Act, or three years if the violation was willful.
( c ) If an employer has violated one or more provisions of FMLA, and if justified by the facts of a particular case, an employee may receive one or more of the following: wages, employment benefits, or other compensation denied or lost to such employee by reason of the violation; or, where no such tangible loss has occurred, such as when FMLA leave was unlawfully denied, any actual monetary loss sustained by the employee as a direct result of the violation, such as the cost of providing care, up to a sum equal to 26 weeks of wages for the employee in a case involving leave to care for a covered servicemember or 12 weeks of wages for the employee in a case involving leave for any other FMLA qualifying reason. In addition, the employee may be entitled to interest on such sum, calculated at the prevailing rate. An amount equaling the preceding sums may also be awarded as liquidated damages unless such amount is reduced by the court because the violation was in good faith and the employer had reasonable grounds for believing the employer had not violated the Act. When appropriate, the employee may also obtain appropriate equitable relief, such as employment, reinstatement and promotion. When the employer is found in violation, the employee may recover a reasonable attorney's fee, reasonable expert witness fees, and other costs of the action from the employer in addition to any judgment awarded by the court.