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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           8,730
<SECURITIES>                                     2,537
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,787
<ALLOWANCES>                                       196
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                17,812
<PP&E>                                           4,365
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,430
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  20,844
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,084
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            46
<OTHER-SE>                                      17,714
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    20,844
<SALES>                                         30,607
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                30,607
<CGS>                                           17,497
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   25,691
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   5
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,270
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,266
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,004
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,004
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .38
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .37
        

</TABLE>
#### William H. Catlin, Respondent, *v.*The Adirondack Company and others, *Appellants.*

Judgment and order denying new trial reversed, and new trial granted, costs to abide event. Opinion by

Barnard, P. J.;

Dykman, J., not sitting.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                      5


<S>                                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                  9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                        DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                           JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                             SEP-30-1999

<CASH>                                                         8,093
<SECURITIES>                                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                 10,133
<ALLOWANCES>                                                       0
<INVENTORY>                                                  279,975
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                             316,886
<PP&E>                                                        89,722
<DEPRECIATION>                                               (10,892)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                               410,776
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                        116,978
<BONDS>                                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                              0
<PREFERRED>                                                        0
<COMMON>                                                      57,932
<OTHER-SE>                                                   436,150
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                 410,776
<SALES>                                                       77,972
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                              77,972
<CGS>                                                         98,652
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                 98,652
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                             297,618
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                            27,016
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                             (345,314)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                         (345,314)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                    0
<CHANGES>                                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                                (345,314)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                 (0.062)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                 (0.062)



</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-1776

DAVID SIDER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

NANA WILSON, a/k/a Charles, in his individual capacity and official capacity as 

code enforcement inspector; GARY GREENE, in his individual capacity and 

official capacity as code enforcement section chief; DANA WILSON, in his 

individual capacity and official capacity as code enforcement supervisor; 

SHAHRIAR AMIRI, in his individual capacity and official capacity as chief 

building official; TIM MCDONNELL, in his individual capacity and official 

capacity as owner of McDonnell Landscape, Inc.; GEORGE LOPEZE, in his 

individual capacity and official capacity as supervisor of McDonnell Landscape, 

Inc.; JOHN DOE NO. 1, in his individual capacity and official capacity McDonnell 

Landscape; JOHN DOE NO. 2, in his individual capacity and official capacity 

McDonnell Landscape; JOHN DOE NO. 3, in his individual capacity and official 

capacity McDonnell Landscape; JOHN DOE NO. 4, in his individual capacity and 

official capacity McDonnell Landscape; JOHN DOE NO. 5, in his individual 

capacity and official capacity McDonnell Landscape; JOHN DOE No. 6, in his 

individual capacity and official capacity McDonell Landscape; JANE DOE NO. 1, 

in her individual capacity and official capacity McDonnell Landscape,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:18-cv-00212-LMB-TCB)

Submitted: March 28, 2019 Decided: April 11, 2019

Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
2

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Sider, Appellant Pro Se. MinhChau Nguyen Corr, COUNTY ATTORNEY’S 

OFFICE, Arlington, Virginia, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

David Sider appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his complaint. We 

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the 

reasons stated by the district court. Sider v. Wilson, No. 1:18-cv-00212-LMB-TCB 

(E.D. Va. June 8, 2018). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument 

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### BURLINGTON ISLAND AMUSEMENT CO., PLAINTIFF, v. BURLINGTON ISLAND PARK CO., DEFENDANT.

Submitted October term, 1929

Decided December 2, 1929.

Before Justices Parker, Black and Bodine.

For the plaintiff, *Henry M. Hartman.*

For the defendant, *Norman W. Harlcer.*

Per Curiam.

This suit was brought to recover damages for a breach of a lease of a tract of land at Burlington Island, Burlington county, New Jersey. A rule to show cause was allowed, why the venue should not be changed from Mercer county to Burlington county. The principal office in the charter of the plaintiff is alleged to be in Trenton, Mercer county. The venue is laid in Mercer county. Under the rules laid down in such cases as *Keeley*v. *Borough of*Belmar, 97 *N. J. L.*98, there is no sufficient reason shown for changing the venue. Under such cases as *Clement*v. *Stanger,*75 *N. J. L.*287, the action is transitory and not local. ’ It is brought solely to recover damages for the breach of the lease. The rule to show cause is discharged, with costs.
§ 173.005 Specific applicability. This subpart applies to each vessel that— ( a ) Is equipped to lift cargo or other objects; and
( b ) Has a maximum heeling moment due to hook load greater than or equal to—
(0.67)(W)(GM)(F/B) in meter-metric tons (foot-long tons), where— W = displacement of the vessel with the hook load included in metric (long) tons. GM = metacentric height with hook load included in meters (feet). F = freeboard to the deck edge amidships in meters (feet). B = beam in meters (feet).
[CGD 79-023, 48 FR 51045, Nov. 4, 1983, as amended by CGD 85-080, 61 FR 945, Jan. 10, 1996]
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

J AND J SPORTS 

PRODUCTIONS, INC., 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 14-11696 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

BILRIVIN, INC., et al., 

 Defendants. 

_________________________________/ 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT (ECF #15); PERMITTING ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY; AND 

SETTING STATUS CONFERENCE 

 For the reasons stated on the record, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF #15) is DENIED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties are permitted to conduct 

additional discovery until May 26, 2015. Discovery must be served sufficiently in 

advance of the discovery cutoff date so as to allow the opposing party sufficient 

time to respond under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure prior to the close of 

discovery. 

 

 

2:14-cv-11696-MFL-MJH Doc # 18 Filed 03/26/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 475
 2 

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that counsel for the parties shall appear for a 

telephonic status conference with the Court on May 27, 2015, at 2:30 p.m. 

Counsel shall use the following dial-in information to access the conference: 

 Call-in number: (215) 446-3649 

 Access code: 8390969 

 s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: March 26, 2015 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties 

and/or counsel of record on March 26, 2015, by electronic means and/or ordinary 

mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (313) 234-5113

2:14-cv-11696-MFL-MJH Doc # 18 Filed 03/26/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 476
1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Central Federal Corporation;
 2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of
the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the
period covered by this report;
 3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods
presented in this report;
 4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)
and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure
that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
report based on such evaluation; andc)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent
fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants
auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors:
 a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely
to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting.
 Date:      May 14, 2010
    /s/ Mark S. AllioMark S. AllioChairman of the Board, President
and Chief Executive Officer
Long, Sharon (FAA) 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Cc: 

Subject: 

Mitchell, Scott E (FAA) 

Wednesday, July 27, 2016 11:05 AM 

Richard Simon; Marsha Moutrie; slewis@andersonkreiger.com 

9-AWA-AGC-Part-16 (FAA); Cason, Cathryn G (FAA); Brockman, Kathy (FAA) 

ORDER: Smith et al. v. City of Santa Monica (FAA Docket No. 16-16-02) 

To: Richard Simon (counsel for complainants) 

Your unopposed motion to extend the time to reply to respondent's answer in the above captioned matter is 

GRANTED. The reply is due on or before August 1, 2016. 

Scott E. Mitchell 

Senior Attorney, Airport Law (AGC-610) 

202 267 9676 

Please note my new cell phane number: 202 251 7974 

1
# C_2011238EN.01003701.xml

| 13.8.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 238/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.8.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 238/37

---

Action brought on 17 February 2011 — Strohm v Commission

(Case F-14/11)

2011/C 238/66

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Andreas Strohm (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J. Schlenker, M. Heimburger, R. Bakker and U. Thanner, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of the defendant not to defray 100 % of medical expenses for dental treatment.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | On annulment of the statement of 1.6.2010, List No 10003157; of 4.6.2010, List No 10003164 and of 25.11.2010, List No 10003383, and the approval decisions AZ: 100525302817 of 4.6.2010 and 100525302817 of 11.6.2010, order the defendant to pay the applicant EUR 4 251,49 plus interest at the rate of 5 percentage points; |
| --- | --- |

—

On annulment of the statement of 1.6.2010, List No 10003157; of 4.6.2010, List No 10003164 and of 25.11.2010, List No 10003383, and the approval decisions AZ: 100525302817 of 4.6.2010 and 100525302817 of 11.6.2010, order the defendant to pay the applicant EUR 4 251,49 plus interest at the rate of 5 percentage points;

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

---
Editorial Note on Part 154
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 154 appear part 154 appear by CGD-95-072, 60 FR 50466, Sept. 29, 1995, CGD-96-041, 61 FR 50732, Sept. 27, 1996, USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49235, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 154.705 Cargo boil-off as fuel: General. ( a ) Each cargo boil-off fuel system under § 154.703(c) must meet §§ 154.706 through 154.709.
( b ) The piping in the cargo boil-off fuel system must have a connection for introducing inert gas and for gas freeing the piping in the machinery space.
( c ) A gas fired main propulsion boiler or combustion engine must have a fuel oil fired pilot that maintains fuel flow as required under § 154.1854 if the gas fuel supply is cut-off.
§ 182.450 Vent pipes for fuel tanks. ( a ) Each unpressurized fuel tank must be fitted with a vent pipe connected to the highest point of the tank.
( b ) The net cross sectional area of the vent pipe for a gasoline fuel tank must not be less than that of 19 millimeters (0.75 inches) outer diameter (O.D.) tubing (0.9 millimeter (0.035 Inch) wall thickness, 20 gauge), except that, where the tank is filled under pressure, the net cross sectional area of the vent pipe must be not less than that of the fill pipe.
( c ) The minimum net cross sectional area of the vent pipe for diesel fuel tanks must be as follows: ( 1 ) Not less than the cross sectional area of 16 millimeters (0.625 inches) outer diameter (O.D.) tubing (0.9 millimeter (0.035-inch) wall thickness, 20 gauge), if the fill pipe terminates at the top of the tank;
( 2 ) Not less than the cross sectional area of 19 millimeters (0.75 inches) O.D. tubing (0.9 millimeter (0.035-inch) wall thickness, 20 gauge), if the fill pipe extends into the tank; and
( 3 ) Not less than the cross sectional area of the fill pipe if the tank is filled under pressure.
( d ) The discharge ends of fuel tank vent pipes must terminate on the hull exterior as high above the waterline as practicable and remote from any hull openings, or they must terminate in U-bends as high above the weather deck as practicable and as far as practicable from openings into any enclosed spaces. Vent pipes terminating on the hull exterior must be installed or equipped to prevent the accidental contamination of the fuel by water under normal operating conditions.
( e ) The discharge ends of fuel tank vent pipes must be fitted with removable flame screens or flame arresters. The flame screens must consist of a single screen of corrosion resistant wire of at least 30 × 30 mesh. The flame screens or flame arresters must be of such size and design as to prevent reduction in the net cross sectional area of the vent pipe and permit cleaning or renewal of the flame screens or arrester elements.
( f ) A vessel of not more than 19.8 meters (65 feet) in length, carrying not more than 12 passengers, with fuel gasoline tank vents built in accordance with ABYC H-24 (incorporated by reference; see 46 CFR 175.600), or 33 CFR 183, subpart J, or with diesel fuel tank vents built in accordance with ABYC H-33 (incorporated by reference; see 46 CFR 175.600), will be considered as meeting the requirements of this section.
( g ) Where a flexible vent pipe section is necessary, suitable flexible tubing or hose having high resistance to salt water, petroleum oils, heat and vibration, may be used. Such hose must overlap metallic pipe ends at least 11 ⁄ 2 times the pipe diameter and must be secured at each end by clamps. The flexible section must be accessible and as near the upper end of the vent pipe as practicable.
( h ) Fuel tank vent pipes shall be installed to gradient upward to prevent fuel from being trapped in the line.
[CGD 85-080, 61 FR 986, Jan. 10, 1996, as amended by USCG-2003-16630, 73 FR 65209, Oct. 31, 2008]
Order entered December 29 , 2016

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 16 - 00113 - CV IN THE INTE REST OF R.N. AND R.N ., CHILDREN On Appeal from the 303rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF - 12 - 07618



### O RDER Before the Court is appellant’s December 27, 2016 third motion to extend time to file appellant’s amended brief. Appellant’s motion is GRANTED . Appellant’s brief shall be filed by January 23, 2017. We expressly caution appellant that failure to file a brief may result in the dismissal of this appeal without further notice

. T EX . R. A PP . P. 38.8( a )(1).

/s/ CRAIG STODDART JUSTICE
#### § 132.240 Stowage of semi-portable fire extinguishers.

The frame or support of each semi-portable fire extinguisher must be secured to prevent the extinguisher from shifting in heavy weather.

[USCG-2012-0196, 81 FR 48272, July 22, 2016]
**EXHIBIT 32.2****Section 1350 Certification**     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, theundersigned officer of Nextera Enterprises, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certifies, to suchofficer’s knowledge, that:     (i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly periodended March 31, 2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Act of 1934, as amended; and     (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly represents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.Date: May 15, 2006       By: /s/ Michael P. Muldowney Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer    (Principal Financial Officer)  The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether madebefore or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
25
# C_2011186EN.01003602.xml

| 25.6.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 186/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.6.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 186/36

---

Action brought on 19 April 2011 — ZZ v Parliament

(Case F-50/11)

2011/C 186/69

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: P. Nelissen Grade and G. Leblanc, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the decision of the appointing authority to grant the applicant only one merit point in the context of the reporting exercise for 2009.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | annul the decision of the appointing authority of 20 January 2011 rejecting the applicant’s complaint; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the appointing authority of 20 January 2011 rejecting the applicant’s complaint;

| — | annul the decision of the appointing authority of 11 May 2010, communicated to the applicant on 27 May 2010, to award only one merit point to the applicant for the reporting exercise for 2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the appointing authority of 11 May 2010, communicated to the applicant on 27 May 2010, to award only one merit point to the applicant for the reporting exercise for 2009;

| — | inform the appointing authority of the effects entailed by the annulment of the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

inform the appointing authority of the effects entailed by the annulment of the contested decision;

| — | grant the applicant 2 000 Euros as compensation for non-material loss suffered; |
| --- | --- |

—

grant the applicant 2 000 Euros as compensation for non-material loss suffered;

| — | order the European Parliament to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

---