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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>           5
<LEGEND>
                    The Schedule contains summary financial
                    information extracted from the financial
                    statements for Prudential-Bache OptiMax
                    Futures Fund LP and is qualified in its entirety
                    by reference to such financial statements
</LEGEND>

<RESTATED>

<CIK>               0000866533
<NAME>              Prudential-Bache OptiMax Futures Fund LP
<MULTIPLIER>        1

<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Dec-31-1997

<PERIOD-START>                  Jan-1-1997

<PERIOD-END>                    Dec-31-1997

<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-Mos

<CASH>                          2,930,275

<SECURITIES>                    13,076,635

<RECEIVABLES>                   0

<ALLOWANCES>                    0

<INVENTORY>                     0

<CURRENT-ASSETS>                16,006,910

<PP&E>                          0

<DEPRECIATION>                  0

<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  16,006,910

<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           420,708

<BONDS>                         0

<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0

<PREFERRED>                     0

<COMMON>                        0

<OTHER-SE>                      0

<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    16,006,910

<SALES>                         0

<TOTAL-REVENUES>                4,802,183

<CGS>                           0

<TOTAL-COSTS>                   0

<OTHER-EXPENSES>                2,379,185

<LOSS-PROVISION>                0

<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              0

<INCOME-PRETAX>                 0

<INCOME-TAX>                    0

<INCOME-CONTINUING>             0

<DISCONTINUED>                  0

<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0

<CHANGES>                       0

<NET-INCOME>                    2,422,998

<EPS-PRIMARY>                   24.91

<EPS-DILUTED>                   24.91

</TABLE>
Exhibit 99.2

          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 annual report of Capital Preferred Yield Fund-IV, L.P.
(the "Partnership") on Form 10-K for the annual period ended December 31, 2002,
as filed with the Security and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Joseph F. Bukofski, Chief Accounting Officer of CAI Equipment
Leasing V Corp., the General Partner of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

     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 Partnership.


By:      /s/Joseph F. Bukofski                             Dated: March 28, 2003
         ---------------------
         Joseph F. Bukofski
Title:   Chief Accounting Officer


                                       43
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 861/2005

of 7 June 2005         

establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 of 21 December 1994 on detailed rules for the application of the import arrangements for fruit and vegetables (1), and in particular Article 4(1) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The standard import values referred to in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 shall be fixed as indicated in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 8 June 2005.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 7 June 2005.

For the Commission

J. M. SILVA RODRÍGUEZ            

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

----

(1)OJ L 337, 24.12.1994, p. 66. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1947/2002 (OJ L 299, 1.11.2002, p. 17).

----

ANNEX

to Commission Regulation of 7 June 2005 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

----

(1)  Country nomenclature as fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 750/2005 (OJ L 126, 19.5.2005, p. 12). Code ‘            999            ’ stands for ‘of other origin’.

----
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4598 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4598

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                July 14 (legislative day, July 11), 1994

    Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, 
                      Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To direct the Secretary of the Interior to make technical corrections 
   to maps relating to the Coastal Barrier Resources System, and to 
  authorize appropriations to carry out the Coastal Barrier Resources 
                                  Act.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. CORRECTIONS TO MAPS.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior shall, before the 
end of the 30-day period beginning on the date of the enactment of this 
Act, make such corrections to the maps described in subsection (b) as 
are necessary to ensure that--
            (1) depictions of areas on those maps are consistent with 
        the depictions of areas appearing on the maps entitled Coastal 
        Barrier Resources System, dated June 29, 1994, and on file with 
        the Secretary of the Interior; and
            (2) the Coastal Barrier Resources System does not include 
        any area that, on the day before the date of the enactment of 
        this Act, was part of unit FL-05P of that System.
    (b) Maps Described.--The maps described in this subsection are maps 
that--
            (1) are included in a set of maps entitled ``Coastal 
        Barrier Resources System'', dated October 24, 1990; and
            (2) relate to the following units of the Coastal Barrier 
        Resources System: FL-05P, P11A, P17, P17A, P18P, P19P, FL-15, 
        FL-95P, FL36P, P31P, FL-72P, MI21, NY75, and VA62P.
    (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 12 of the Coastal 
Barrier Resources Act (16 U.S.C. 3510) is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 12. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    ``There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary for 
carrying out this Act $2,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1994, 1995, 
1996, and 1997.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 12, 1994.

            Attest:

                                           DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
Belknap

No. 81-120

#### Priscilla P. Mizner v. Donald E. Mizner

December 8, 1981

*Haughey & Philpot,*of Laconia *(Stephen J. Laurent*on the brief and orally), for the plaintiff.

*1074*Snierson, Chandler & McKean,*of Laconia *(Edgar D. McKean, III,*on the brief and orally), for the defendant.

Memorandum Opinion

On September 8, 1980, a decree of divorce was entered terminating the marriage of the parties. The court approved and incorporated as part of its decree the parties’ stipulations as to custody, support, and property division. Two months later, Donald Mizner filed a petition to bring forward and modify the decree, asserting that his financial circumstances had changed substantially.

After the divorce, the plaintiff began living with another man who provided her with some financial assistance. The Master *(.Robert A. Carignan,*Esq.) excluded certain financial records of the plaintiff’s live-in friend from the modification hearing. After the master’s report denying relief to Donald Mizner was approved by *Batchelder,*J., this appeal ensued.

 Since the appeal in March 1981, both parties have remarried. In *Logan v. Logan,*120 N.H. 839, 843, 424 A.2d 403, 405 (1980), we held that the trial court in a modification hearing “should consider *all*relevant evidence with regard to the ability of *all*persons owing a duty to support the child or children.” (Emphasis in original.) Under *Logan,*remarriage affects the parties’ duty to support natural children and stepchildren and should be considered by the trial court. *Id.*at 842-43, 424 A.2d at 405. *See generally*RSA ch. 546-A. Because of the parties’ change in status, we see no purpose in deciding this case in its present posture. Accordingly, we remand for reconsideration and/or a new petition to modify. *See Haight v. Petit,*121 N.H. 886, 435 A.2d 1132 (1981).

*Remanded.*

Batchelder, J., did not sit.
#### MILO M. BELDING and others, Respondents, *v.*JOSEPH M. FLOYD, Appellant, Impleaded with FREDERIC S. RICE and THEODORE T. JOHNSON.

*Insurance*— *liability of the president of a company for false representation made by its agents.*

"Where the president of an insurance company, knowing that the statutory prerequisites to its organization have not heen complied with, issues and signs policies and places them in the hands of agents, who, to his knowledge, induce *209people to take them by representing that the laws authorizing the company to transact business have been complied with, he is guilty of a fraud, and an action lies against him to recover back the money so paid.

Appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, entered upon the trial of this action by the court, without a jury.

*W. B.*Putney, for the respondents.

*Thomas*Darlington, for the appellants.

Gilbert, J.:

This is an action to recover back money fraudulently obtained under the following circumstances: An insurance company was organized in 1868. It was prohibited by law from commencing business until $50,000 of its capital stock had’ been subscribed and paid in, and until it had deposited $100,000, invested in certain securities prescribed, with the superintendent .of the insurance department of this State. The defendant became president of said company, and in 1875 issued policies of insurance in the name' of said company and subscribed theOsame as president. These policies were placed in the hands of an agent, who induced the plaintiff, by representing that the laws authorizing the company to commence business had been complied with, to take four of said policies and pay the premiums thereon. The representation was false, and the defendant knew, when he issued the policies, that agents of the company were engaged in soliciting risks for the company, and that the conditions aforesaid had not been performed. The plaintiff had judgment, and the defendant has appealed therefrom.

I am quite sure that the judgment should be affirmed. The money of the plaintiff was obtained by a gross fraud. • The defendant, by issuing the policies and placing them in the hands of an agent who was. engaged in soliciting risks, showed a direct participation in the fraud. It would be a reproach to the law to exempt him from liability, because he did not personally receive the money obtained. Such a rule would exhonerate confederates of persons who pass counterfeit money, and indeed accomplices of every sort. The rule of law is otherwise. When money has been fraudulently *210obtained the law implies a promise to repay it on the part of every person implicated in the fraud. The person defrauded may waive the tort and sue for money had and received. It cannot be necessary to cite authorities to sustain these propositions. (But see 4 Wait’s Actions and Defences, 474.)

The judgment must be affirmed, with costs. 0

Barnard, P. J., and Dykman, J., concurred.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 99.1

                               SVI SOLUTIONS, IN.

                            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 Annual Report of SVI Solutions, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Harvey Braun, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter
63 of Title 18, United States Code, that this Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and that the information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

                                            By:  /s/ HARVEY BRAUN
                                                 -----------------------------
                                                 Harvey Braun
                                                 Chief Executive Officer
                                                 (Principal Executive Officer)

Date: June 26, 2003
National Defense University Hiring New CIO - Accepting Applications Until March 13
 By Patricia Coopersmith
    USA Jobs – Open Position at National Defense University **SALARY RANGE:**
            $125,213.00 to $158,700.00 / Per Year**OPEN PERIOD:**
            Thursday, February 12, 2015 to Friday, March 13, 2015  The NDU Chief Information Officer (CIO) provides vision and leadership in the development of information strategies and services to support the mission, vision, objectives, and priorities of the National Defense University (NDU). Serves as the university’s leader and advocate for information management and effective and efficient employment of IT, with responsibility for planning and implementing an IT environment that meets the evolving needs of the academic, administrative and business computing systems. The CIO position has posted and will close on March 13, 2015. Link to posting on USA Jobs:  https://www.usajobs.gov/GetJob/ViewDetails/393954300
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4573

For the purposes of providing for the full and complete disclosure of information relating to applications for mineral patents under the Mining Law

of 1872.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 13, 1994

Mr. RAHALL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Natural Resources

A BILL

For the purposes of providing for the full and complete

disclosure of information relating to applications for mineral patents under the Mining Law of 1872.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Mineral Patent Public

5 Right-To-Know Act of 1994’’.

6 SEC. 2. DISCLOSURE OF PATENT INFORMATION.

7 (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law or

8 regulation to the contrary, the Secretary of the Interior

9 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘Secretary’’) shall provide
2

HR 4573 IH

1 for the full and complete disclosure, upon request by any

2 party, of all information submitted to the Secretary by an

3 applicant for a patent for a mining claim or mill site pur4 suant to the general mining laws of the United States,

5 and of all information developed by the Bureau of Land

6 Management or the Forest Service, as the case may be,

7 as part of its evaluation of the validity of such mining

8 claim or mill site for the purposes of a patent application.

9 (b) The Secretary shall not issue a patent for a min10 ing claim or mill site pursuant to the general mining laws

11 of the United States until opportunity for hearing and

12 public comment.

Æ
## 9%~ A~TO~RNEY GENERAL

Gerald C. Mann OF TEXAS

Hon. Robert D. Penn County Attorney Reeves County Pews, Texas Deer Sir: Opinion No. O-1144 Re: Is the County Judge entitled to a three dollar fee in a civil case, where the plaintiff dismisses the suit in vacation, before ananswer is filed and pays the costs? Your.request for an opinion upon the above stated question has been received by this department.

Wequote from your letter as follows:

“A question has arisen in this County regarding the proper charge for a fee of office by the County Jydge in a civil case under the following facts:

‘*Acivil suit was filed in County Court but no citation was issued and several days later upon settlement of the suit the Plaintiff desired to pay the costs anddismiss the suit in vacation by notation on the docket, as no answer had been filed. The question has arisen as to whether in such a case the CountyJudge’s fee of 53.00should be charged. Article 3926,R.c.s., 1925, provides for a fee of $3.00 for the County Judge ‘for each civil case finally disposed of by himby trial or otherwise’ but as the case was dismissed in vacation andthe County Judge has had to enter nojudgment of anykind, the Plaintiff questions his right to a fee.

“1 would appreciate your advice as to whether or not in a situation such as this the Judge is entitled to afee *I‘ Article 3926, Revised Civil Statutes of Texas, in part, reads as follows:

“The county judge shall also receive the following fees: *1. ***

“2. *** For each civil cause finally disposed of by himby trial or otherwise, three dollars, to beHon. Robert D. Penn, page 2 (O-1144)

taxed against the party cast in the suit; ***:a Article 2089, Revised Civil Statutes of Texas, reads as follows: "The plaintiff mayenter a discontinuance onthe docket in vacation, in any suit where%: the defendant has not answered, on the payment of all costs that have accrued thereon." Youare, therefore, respectfully advised that it is the opinion ,of this department, under the facts stated in your letter, the county judge would not be entitled to athree dollar fee in a civil case dismissed bythe plaintiff in vacation before anyanswer was filed andwhere the plaintiff paid all costs that had accrued thereon.

Trusting that this answers your inquiry, we are Yours very truly ATTORNEY

GENERAL

OFTEXAS By/s/ Wm.J. Fanning Wm.J. Fanning, Assistant APPROVED

JHL22, 1939 /s/ W.F. Moore FIRSTASSISTANT

ATTORNGY

GENBRAL APPROVED:

OPINIONCOMMITTEE BY: T.P.R., CHAIRMAN WmJFtob8wb
No. 11-789.

#### Jennings *v.*Owens et al.

C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           8,452
<SECURITIES>                                     5,894
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,527
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                         47
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   111
<PP&E>                                           3,406
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,743
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  31,068
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,344
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               13
<PREFERRED>                                        600
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      10,796
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    31,068
<SALES>                                          6,803
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,803
<CGS>                                            1,149
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,149
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                33,252
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,722
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (27,935)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (27,935)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (2.69)<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.69)
<FN>
<F1>For Purposes of This Exhibit, Primary means Basic.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### § 76.938 Proprietary information.

A franchising authority may require the production of proprietary information to make a rate determination in those cases where cable operators have submitted initial rates, or have proposed rate increases, pursuant to an FCC Form 393 (and/or FCC Forms 1200/1205) filing or a cost-of-service showing. The franchising authority shall state a justification for each item of information requested and, where related to an FCC Form 393 (and/or FCC Forms 1200/1205) filing, indicate the question or section of the form to which the request specifically relates. Upon request to the franchising authority, the parties to a rate proceeding shall have access to such information, subject to the franchising authority's procedures governing non-disclosure by the parties. Public access to such proprietary information shall be governed by applicable state or local law.

[59 FR 17973, Apr. 15, 1994]
180P15

#### State v. William Anthony Barnes

Defs PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA14-632)

Denied
§ 42.11 Retention of information concerning detariffed interexchange services. ( a ) A nondominant IXC shall maintain, for submission to the Commission and to state regulatory commissions upon request, price and service information regarding all of the carrier's international and interstate, domestic, interexchange service offerings. A commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) provider shall maintain such price and service information only about its international common carrier service offerings and only for those routes on which the CMRS provider is classified as dominant under § 63.10 of this Chapter due to an affiliation with a foreign carrier that collects settlement payments from U.S. carriers for terminating U.S. international switched traffic at the foreign end of the route. Such a CMRS provider is not required to maintain its price and service information, however, on any such affiliated route if it provides service on that route solely through the resale of an unaffiliated facilities-based provider's international switched services. The price and service information maintained for purposes of this paragraph shall include documents supporting the rates, terms, and conditions of the carrier's international and interstate, domestic, interexchange offerings. The information maintained pursuant to this section shall be maintained in a manner that allows the carrier to produce such records within ten business days. For purposes of this paragraph, *affiliated* and *foreign carrier* are defined in § 63.09 of this chapter.
( b ) The price and service information maintained pursuant to this section shall be retained for a period of at least two years and six months following the date the carrier ceases to provide services pursuant to such rates, terms and conditions.
[61 FR 59366, Nov. 22, 1996, as amended at 62 FR 59604, Nov. 4, 1997; 64 FR 19725, Apr. 22, 1999; 66 FR 16879, Mar. 28, 2001]