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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     Financial Data Schedule for INVU, Inc.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001035039
<NAME>                        INVU, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                  1
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             JAN-3-1999
<PERIOD-START>                FEB-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                  OCT-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>               1
<CASH>                        0
<SECURITIES>                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                 363
<ALLOWANCES>                  0
<INVENTORY>                   116,900
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              133,734
<PP&E>                        89,714
<DEPRECIATION>                29,450
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                193,998
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         218,679
<BONDS>                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         0
<PREFERRED>                   0
<COMMON>                      288,355
<OTHER-SE>                    (632,061)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  193,998
<SALES>                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              0
<CGS>                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 412,582
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              1,100
<LOSS-PROVISION>              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            3,914
<INCOME-PRETAX>               (415,396)
<INCOME-TAX>                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           0
<DISCONTINUED>                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>               0
<CHANGES>                     0
<NET-INCOME>                  (415,396)
<EPS-BASIC>                 (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                 (0.01)





</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1  Certification Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant To Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002    The undersigned hereby certifies, in my capacity as an officer of NSTAR, for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:(i)the enclosed Quarterly Report of NSTAR on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(ii)the information contained in this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of NSTAR.  Date: May 2, 2008By:/s/ THOMAS J. MAYThomas J. MayChairman, President andChief Executive Officer
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-15-00500-CV

In re Thomas Allen Simon

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM BURNET COUNTY

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

Relator Thomas Allen Simon has filed a petition for writ of mandamus and for writ of

prohibition seeking to vacate the order of the 424th District Court of Burnet County removing

his appointed counsel in trial court cause number 42908. With his petition, Simon has filed a

motion for temporary relief seeking a stay of the underlying proceedings. We grant the motion for

temporary relief and stay the proceedings in the district court, pending further orders of this Court.

The real party in interest, the State of Texas, is requested to file a response to the petition for writ

of mandamus and for writ of prohibition on or before August 24, 2015. Any other responses are

likewise due on that date. Persons filing a response may also address, in either that response or a

separate filing, the advisability of our continuing the temporary relief pending our final disposition

of the petition’s merits.

It is ordered on August 12, 2015.

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Pemberton and Field
Here's how you know
 **Official websites use .mil** .mil
 **Secure .mil websites use HTTPS** lock () https://


Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            U.S. Central Command
                CENTCOM
        Search
                    Search CENTCOM:
                        Search
                Search CENTCOM:
                    Search
    Home

    ABOUT US
    
        COMMAND PRIORITIES

    LEADERSHIP

    COMPONENT COMMANDS

    HISTORY

    POSTURE STATEMENT

    CENTCOM AOR
    
        CENTCOM COALITION

    OPERATIONS AND EXERCISES
    
        USMTM

    CIVILIAN CASUALTY REPORT

    CONTACT
    
        OPERATIONAL CONTRACT SUPPORT

    COMMUNITY RELATIONS

    THEATRE MEDICAL CLEARANCE

    INNOVATION VENDOR PORTAL

    MILITARY MEMBER INNOVATION PORTAL

    MEDIA
    
        SOCIAL MEDIA

    NEWS ARTICLES

    PRESS RELEASES

    STATEMENTS

    IMAGERY

    VIDEOS

    TRANSCRIPTS

    VISITORS AND PERSONNEL
    
        FAMILY CENTER

    FAMILY READINESS

    CENTCOM WEBMAIL

    SOCIAL MEDIA SECURITY

    ACCOUNTABILITY

    EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

    USCENTCOM UNCLASSIFIED REGULATIONS

    FOIA LIBRARY

    INNOVATION OASIS

    WELCOME GUIDE  Search
 Search
 All Images All ImagesCommunity RelationsOtherPreviousCommanders
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (1.56 MB)
 Photo Gallery
 About UsCommand PrioritiesLeadershipComponent
   CommandsHistoryPosture Statement
   Area of
   ResponsibilityCENTCOM Coalition
   Operations And
   ExercisesOperation Inherent
   ResolveResolute Support
   MediaSocial MediaNews ArticlesPress ReleasesVideo And Imagery
   Visitors And
   PersonnelFamily ReadinessCENTCOM WebmailSocial MediaSecurityAccountabilityEmergency
   Preparedness
   ContactCommunity Relations
                    Stay Connected
                
                Privacy & Security  Inspector General  FOIA  Privacy Act
            

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
#### Hester J. Todd and another, Administrators, etc., Respondents, v. Isaac Nelson, Appellant, Impleaded, etc.

— Judgment reversed, and new triffi granted, costs to abide event. Opinion by

Pratt, J.;

Bartlett, J., dissenting.
THIRD AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT OF SALE

     THIS THIRD AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT OF SALE (this "Amendment"), is entered
into as of the 6th day of January, 1997, by and between LINCOLN PROPERTY
COMPANY N.C., INC., a Texas corporation ("Purchaser"), and BGT LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, an Illinois limited partnership ("Seller").

                              W I T N E S S E T H:

     A.   Purchaser and Seller have heretofore entered into a certain Agreement
of Sale dated December 6, 1996 (as previously amended, the "Agreement") for the
purchase and sale of the property commonly known as 1420 Harbor Bay, located in
Alameda,  California.

     B.   Purchaser and Seller now desire to amend the Agreement to change the
Closing Date and the Purchase Price.

     NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto hereby agree
as follows:

     1.   The Purchase Price, as defined in Paragraph 1 of the Agreement is
hereby changed to $6,900,000.

     2.   The expiration of the Inspection Period (as defined in Paragraph 7.1
of the Agreement) is deemed to have occurred at 2:00 p.m. Chicago time on
January 6, 1997.  Purchaser has elected to waive its rights to terminate the
Agreement puruant to Paragraph 7.1 thereof.

     3.   The Closing Date, as defined in Paragraph 8 of the Agreement, shall
be changed to January 21, 1997.

     4.   The Escrow Agreement is hereby modified to conform with the terms of
this Amendment.

     5.   Except as specifically modified herein, the terms and conditions of
the Agreement shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.

     6.   All capitalized terms used in this Amendment, unless otherwise
defined herein, shall have the meanings given to them in the Agreement.













     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of
the date first set forth above.


                              PURCHASER:

                              LINCOLN PROPERTY COMPANY N.C., INC.,
                              a Texas corporation


                              By:   /s/ Steve M. Dunn
                                   ------------------------------
                              Name:     Steven M. Dunn
                                   ------------------------------
                              Its:      Director of Aquisitions
                                   ------------------------------


                              SELLER:

                              BGT LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,

                              By:  BGT Partners, Inc., an Illinois
                                   corporation, its general partner


                              By:   /s/ James E. Mendelson
                                   ---------------------------
                              Name:     James E. Mendelson
                                   ---------------------------
                              Its:      Authorized Rep.
                                   ---------------------------
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 3.1.1
Certificate of Amendment
of
Certificate of Incorporation
of
EATERTAINMENT INC.
Under Section 242 of the General Corporation Law
 
          It is hereby certified that:
          1. The name of the corporation is Eatertainment Inc. (the“Corporation”).
          2. The certificate of incorporation of the Corporation is herebyamended by striking out Article FIRST thereof and bysubstituting in lieu ofsaid Article the following new Article:
“FIRST: The name of the corporation (hereinafter sometimescalled the “Corporation”) is Total Entertainment RestaurantCorp.”
          3. The amendment of the certificate of incorporation hereincertified has been duly adopted in accordance with the provisions of Sections228 and 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware and writtenconsent of stockholders has been given in accordance with Section 228 of theGeneral Corporation Law of the State of Delaware. Prompt written notice of theadoption of the amendment herein certified shall be given to those stockholderswho have not consented in writing thereto, as provided in Section 228(d) of theGeneral Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.
Signed and acknowledged on June 11, 1997.       EATERTAINMENT INC.       By: /s/James K. Zielke         James K. Zielke    Chief Financial Officer
From: Muenster, Kay

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: I oppose the Definition of Religious Employer in Health Care Rules

Date: Monday, August 08, 2011 4:14:09 PM

The current definition of religious employer does not provide true conscience protection for those committed to

preserving life. Health care plans should not be forced to violate the moral and religious convictions of providers

or employees in order to participate in the health care system. Requiring such an unacceptable demand

threatens both universal access to health care and religious freedom of conscience.

We are a county of immigrants who came here to practice Religious freedom, now the govt is in every phase of

our life; I’m starting to feel Chinese!!!
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF GENERAL INSTRUMENT CORPORATION AS OF AND FOR THE THREE
MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         424,700
<SECURITIES>                                    10,850
<RECEIVABLES>                                  298,480
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (3,311)
<INVENTORY>                                    261,481
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,091,337
<PP&E>                                         524,458
<DEPRECIATION>                               (288,648)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,388,106
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          408,019
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,809
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,894,883
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,388,106
<SALES>                                        519,061
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               519,061
<CGS>                                          381,015
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  381,015
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,683
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 45,219
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (16,731)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             28,488
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    28,488
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.15
        

</TABLE>
#### Irma I. Gyorkos, Plaintiff, v. John B. Reynolds, Trading as Jack’s Service Station, Defendant.

*(December*20, 1951.)

Herrmann, J., sitting.

*William H. Bennethum*and *Morton E. Evans*(of Morford, Bennethum, Marvel and Gooch) for Plaintiff.

*William Prickett*and *Jackson W. Raysor*for Defendant.

Superior Court for New Castle County,

No. 576,

Civil Action, 1951.

Herrmann, J.:

The plaintiff has alleged “loss of earnings” as an item of damages. Pursuant to Rule 33, the defendant propounded the *450following interrogatory to the plaintiff: “6. Specify the amount of wages, if any, that were not paid to plaintiff because of such absence from work.”

The plaintiff contends that the answer to this question would be inadmissible at trial and that the interrogatory is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The plaintiff bases this contention upon the rule that a person, injured as the result of the negligence of another, may recover wages for the period during which he was unable to perform the duties of his employment by reason of the injury, notwithstanding the fact that his employer may have made payments to him during that period as gratuities or with the understanding of repayment after recovery. See *Campbell v. Brandenburger,*5 *W. W. Harr.*203, 162 *A.*354.

The plaintiff’s objection is without merit. There is nothing in the record at this stage of the case to justify the application of the rule of damages to which the plaintiff refers. Moreover, the plaintiff is urging that the test of admissibility he applied in determining whether the interrogatory is proper. Relevancy, not admissibility, is the test. An interrogatory is proper if it relates to relevant matter, even though the answer may be inadmissible in evidence. The Court will not make pretrial rulings regarding the materiality or admissibility in evidence of information sought by interrogatories. 4 *Moore’s Federal Practice (2d Ed.)*§ 33.11; *Bowles, etc. v. Safeway Stores, Inc., et al., D. C. W. D. Mo.,*1945, 4 *F. R. D.*469; *Patterson Oil Terminals, Inc., v. Charles Kurz & Co., Inc., et al., D. C. E, D. Pa.*1945, 7 *F. R. D.*250.

Interrogatory No. 6 is relevant to the matter of “loss of earnings” alleged as an item of special damages. The objection will be overruled.
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**




**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Cardinal Communications, Inc. (the
      “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30 2006 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of
      the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
      certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
      906
      of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:




1.  The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




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




Date:August
                22, 2006
            By:*/s/
                Edouard A. Garneau*Name:Edouard
                A. GarneauTitle:Chief
                Executive OfficerDate:August
                22, 2006
            By:*/s/
                D. Brian Karr*Name:D.
                Brian KarrTitle:Chief
                Financial Officer





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authentications, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
      by Section 906, has been provided to Cardinal Communications, Inc. and will
      be
      retained by Cardinal Communications, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
      Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# Fourth Cour t of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas

August 3, 2018

No. 04

- 18

- 00509

- CV

TITLE SOURCE, INC

. , Appellant

v.

HOUSECANARY INC ., formerly known as Canary Analytics, Inc., Appellees

From the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 201 6

- CI

- 06300 Honorable David A. Canales, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The clerk ’ s notif

ication of late record is hereby GRANTED. Time is extended to August 13, 2018.

_________________________________ Irene Rios , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said
court on this 3rd day of August, 2018

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
#### Carter *et al v.*Carroll, executor.

Submitted July 4,

Decided December 21, 1907.

Petition for certiorari, from Brooks superior court.

Practice in tbe Supreme Court.

*J. G. & J. F. McCall*and *J. D. Wade Jr.,*for plaintiffs.

*M. Baum,*for defendant.

Beok, J.

To bring to this court for review a refusal to sanction a petition for certiorari, such petition should be incorporated in the bill of exceptions or otherwise verified by the judge. Such petition can not be considered here when it is sent up as a part of the transcript of the record and certified as a part of the record; for it is not a part of the record until after it has been sanctioned. *Tompkins*v. *Newnan,*120 *Ga.*173 (47 S. E. 557).

*Writ of error dismissed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Holden, J., who did not preside.*
From: Helga Klessen

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Thank you for supporting birth control access for all women

Date: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 12:25:13 PM

Dear Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health & Human Services,

I commend the Department of Health & Human Services' landmark decision requiring health insurers to

cover the full cost of contraception, with no co-pay, beginning in August 2012.

This policy places a much-needed importance on women's health that is too-often not a priority in

health care policy. Birth control is a critical part of preventive care, and making contraception available

to all women, regardless of their insurance or ability to pay for it, will significantly reduce long-term

health care costs associated with unplanned pregnancies.

Thank you for prioritizing women's basic health care needs.

Sincerely,

Helga Klessen

341 Gage Road

Brewster, NY 10509
BERNARD A. GUERRINI, P.C.
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

BERNARD A. GUERRINI 6500 GREENVILLE AVENUE
BAG@ERISALTD.COM sure 320
DALLAS, TEXAS 75206
TeL: (21 4)-692-6556
JOHN L. THOMPSON Fax: (21 41692-6578
uut@enisacto.com WwW. ERISALTO.COM

October 23, 2017

Office of Regulations and Interpretations,
Employee Benefits Security Administration
Room M-S5655

U.S. Department of Labor

200 Constitution Avenue NW

Washington, D.C, 20210

RE: Claims Procedure Regulations for Plans Providing Disability Benefits Examination
RIN No.: 1210-AB39
Regulation: 29 C.F.R. §2560.503-1

Dear Deputy Assistant Secretary Hauser:

Ihave been assisting claimants with their long term disability claims for over 15 years of my
39 year career as an attorney. I am well aware of the claim process set out in the above cited
regulation.

I am concerned with the proposed delay of the recently amended regulation which was
finalized with the proper notice and comment period. This period allowed for numerous comments
which were properly and adequately considered.

This proposed delay is to allow for consideration of new information from insurers and plans.
If allowed, this delay will detract from the transparency of the process as the new information is not
available to potential claimants and/or their representatives. No explanation is given for why the
process was not sufficient to finalize the regulation or why the new information was not available
during that process.

In addition, it appears that further preceding will involve the collection of data in a
confidential manner and without scientific validity. This is already the case with respect to the
industry’s estimation of an increase in premiums if the regulation becomes effective.


Office of Regulations and Interpretations
October 19, 2017
Page 2

The regulation’s effective date should not be delayed as it was properly finalized with
adequate consideration of all information that was or could have been available. Delay would detract
from the finality and fairness of the process, and decrease the trust placed in the efficacy of the
process.

Respectfully,

Pesnaal 6a

Bernard A. Guerrini
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1183 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1183

 To authorize the modification of a pump station intake structure and 
 discharge line of the Fort Fairfield, Maine, flood control project at 
                         full Federal expense.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 16, 2001

Ms. Snowe (for herself and Ms. Collins) introduced the following bill; 
 which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 
                              Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To authorize the modification of a pump station intake structure and 
 discharge line of the Fort Fairfield, Maine, flood control project at 
                         full Federal expense.

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

SECTION 1. FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT, FORT FAIRFIELD, MAINE.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Federal share of 
all design and construction costs associated with modifying the pump 
station intake structure and discharge line to prevent ice from 
interfering with pump operation at the Fort Fairfield, Maine, flood 
control project, authorized under section 205 of the Flood Control Act 
of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s), shall be 100 percent.
                                 <all>
```