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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF CHASTAIN CAPITAL CORPORATION FOR THE PERIOD ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         953,366
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               977,087
<PP&E>                                       3,632,386
<DEPRECIATION>                                 135,926
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              69,082,913
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       10,814,558
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        73,468
<OTHER-SE>                                  58,194,887
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                69,082,913
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,339,093
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  332,475
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,277,380
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             2,598,850
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,852,889
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,570,348)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (1,570,348)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,570,348)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.21)


</TABLE>
```

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 216 (Thursday, November 9, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 77373]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-24720]

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

POSTAL SERVICE

Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS 
Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: November 9, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
October 30, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 12 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2024-29, CP2024-29.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2023-24720 Filed 11-8-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
**Exhibit32.1**

 

**Certificationof Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer18 U.S.C. Section 1350as Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

 

The undersigned, the Principal Executive Officer (CEO) and the PrincipalFinancial Officer (Chief Financial Officer) of INTAC International, Inc. (the“Company”), each hereby certifies that to his knowledge on the date hereof:

 

(a)               TheAnnual Report on Form 10-K SB of the Company for the year ended December 31,2003, filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the“Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15 (d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(b)              Informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| Dated:    March  30, 2004     |
|---------------------------------------------------|
|                                              |
|                                              |
|                                              | /s/ Wei Zhou |   |
| Wei Zhou                                          |   |
| President and Chief Executive Officer             |   |
|                                              |
|                                              |
|                                              | /s/ J. David Darnell |   |
| J. David Darnell                                  |   |
| Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |   |

 

 

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by suchAct, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

 

----
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DEANNA MICOCCI : CIVIL ACTION

 :

v. :

 :

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY :

d/b/a ALLSTATE : NO. 03-5376

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Fullam, Sr. J. April 11, 2006

The complaint in this case was filed on September 24,

2003. Trial was originally scheduled to take place in November

2005, but has been rescheduled (pursuant to stipulations between

counsel), and is now scheduled to take place on April 24, 2006. 

Counsel have recently seen fit to file a flurry of motions –

approximately 19 in all.

The only significant issue for trial is whether the

defendant, Allstate, had a duty to defend the plaintiff in a

state-court lawsuit, and that issue is largely dependent upon

whether Allstate received due notice of the state-court

litigation. The case originally involved another defendant,

GEICO, but that firm is no longer a party.

As between plaintiff and the defendant, Allstate, the

record reflects that, until March 24, 2006, the defendant,

Allstate, had filed 12 motions, and plaintiff had filed 11. 

Since March 24, 2006, Allstate has filed an additional 12

motions, and plaintiff has filed 3. The only motions of any real

Case 2:03-cv-05376-JF Document 146 Filed 04/11/06 Page 1 of 3
2

significance are cross-motions for summary judgment, and

defendant’s motion for postponement of the trial. Since there

are, plainly, disputed issues of fact, the cross-motions for

summary judgment will be denied. Since the parties have had

ample time to prepare for trial, and have been aware of the date

for months, the motion for continuance of the trial will also be

denied.

Allstate’s remaining motions include 8 motions in

limine, all of which seem pointless and unnecessary. Some seek

to prevent plaintiff’s counsel from causing a mistrial by

advancing improper argument, and some are equally frivolous for

other reasons. It seems clear that counsel are more interested

in annoying each other than in advancing meritorious positions.

An Order follows.

Case 2:03-cv-05376-JF Document 146 Filed 04/11/06 Page 2 of 3
3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DEANNA MICOCCI : CIVIL ACTION

 :

v. :

 :

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY :

d/b/a ALLSTATE : NO. 03-5376

ORDER

AND NOW, this 11th day of April 2006, IT IS ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED.

2. The motion of defendant, Allstate, for summary

judgment is DENIED.

3. Allstate’s motion to postpone the trial is DENIED.

The trial remains scheduled for April 24, 2006.

4. All other pending motions are DENIED.

5. After the conclusion of the trial, counsel will be

afforded an opportunity to show cause why sanctions should not be

imposed, for violations of 28 U.S.C. § 1927.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ John P. Fullam 

John P. Fullam, Sr. J.

Case 2:03-cv-05376-JF Document 146 Filed 04/11/06 Page 3 of 3
No. 50351.

#### Protest 507214-G of General Hide & Skin Corp. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

It was stipulated that the goatskins are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Winograd Bros.*(32 C. C. P. A. 153, C. A. D. 302), and that the dogskins are the same as those involved in *Brachman & Co.*v. *United States*(5 Cust. Ct. 153, C. D. 389), which records were admitted in evidence herein. In aecbrdance therewith the claim for free entry under paragraph 1681 was sustained.
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 1008** 

DANIEL A. ROBERTS , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.
VIRGINIA BEACH COURT HOUSE; CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH , Defendants

- Appellees

.

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

. Robert G. Doumar , Senior District Judge. ( 2:15

- cv - 00510

- RGD

- RJK )

Submitted : July 28, 2016 Decided: August 1, 2016

Before MOTZ and HARRIS , Circuit Judges , and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Daniel A. Roberts, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Daniel A. Roberts appeals the district court’s order dismissing his action under 42 U.S.C. § § 1983 , 1985 (2012) . On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Roberts’
info rmal brief does not challenge the district court’s dispositive analysis, Roberts has forfeited appellate review of
the court’s order. See Williams v. Giant Food Inc. , 370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004). Accordingly , we affirm the
district court ’ s judgment

. We deny Roberts’ motion to
reconsider. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED
# C_2018166EN.01001001.xml

| 14.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 166/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 166/10

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck — Austria) — Georg Stollwitzer v ÖBB Personenverkehr AG

(Case C-482/16) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Article 45 TFEU - Principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 21(1) - Directive 2000/78/EC - Articles 2, 6 and 16 - Reference date for the purpose of advancement - Discriminatory legislation of a Member State which does not allow periods of activity completed before reaching the age of 18 to be taken into account for the purpose of determining remuneration - Abolition of provisions that are contrary to the principle of equal treatment))

(2018/C 166/12)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Georg Stollwitzer

Applicant:

Defendant: ÖBB Personenverkehr AG

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 45 TFEU and Articles 2, 6 and 16 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation are to be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, in order to end discrimination on grounds of age arising as a result of the application of national law that took into account, for the purpose of the categorisation of the employees of an undertaking within pay scales, only periods of activity completed after the age of 18, retroactively abolishes that age limit in respect of all such workers and allows only experience acquired with other undertakings operating in the same economic sector to be taken into account.

---

(1)  OJ C 428, 21.11.2016.

1

---
# C_2018072EN.01002401.xml

| 26.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/24

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln — Germany) — Deister Holding AG, formerly Traxx Investments N.V. (C-504/16), Juhler Holding A/S (C-613/16) v Bundeszentralamt für Steuern

(Joined Cases C-504/16 and C-613/16) (1)

1

((References for a preliminary ruling - Direct taxation - Freedom of establishment - Directive 90/435/EEC - Article 1(2) - Article 5 - Parent company - Holding company - Withholding tax on profits distributed to a non-resident parent holding company - Exemption - Fraud, tax evasion and abuse - Presumption))

(2018/C 072/31)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Finanzgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Deister Holding AG, formerly Traxx Investments N.V. (C-504/16), Juhler Holding A/S (C-613/16)

Applicants:

Defendant: Bundeszentralamt für Steuern

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(2) in conjunction with Article 5(1) of Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States, as amended by Council Directive 2006/98/EC of 20 November 2006 and Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a Member State’s tax legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, where persons have holdings in a non-resident parent company who would not be entitled to the refund or exemption from withholding tax if they received the dividends from a resident subsidiary directly, denies, provided one of the conditions set by that legislation is satisfied, relief from tax on income from capital tax on distributions of profits to that parent company.

---

(1)  OJ C 475, 19.12.2016.

1

---
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 7373

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. CARLOS DEMOND ROBINSON , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Greenville

. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. ( 6:03

- cr - 00616

- HMH

- 1 )

Submitted : February 25, 2020 Decided: March 3, 2020

Before MOTZ and QUATTLEBAUM , Circuit Judges , and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Dismissed and remanded by un published per curiam opinion

.

Carlos Demond Robinson , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Carlos Demond Robinson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denyin g his motion for sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(B) (2018) and the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115

- 391, 132 Stat. 5194 (2018). We may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2018), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2018). “Ordinarily, a district court order is not final until it has resolved all claims as to all parties.” Porter v. Zook , 803 F.3d 694, 696 (4th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). Our review of th e record reveals that the district court did not adjudicate all of the claims Robinson raised in his motion for sentence reduction

. Robinson requested that the district court reduce his sentences for trafficking in cocaine base, pursuant to Section 404
of the First Step Act, and vacate his § 924(c) convictions, in light of Section 403’s amendments to that statute. The district court denied Robinson’s request in part , finding that Section 403 of the First Step Act is non

- retroactive and therefore affords R obinson no relief regarding his § 924(c) convictions. The district court , however, did not address Robinson’s request for relief u nder Section 404 of the First Step Act. Accordingly , we conclude that the order Robinson seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order

. W e therefore dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction
and remand to the district court for consideration of the unresol ved claim. 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.
DISMISSED AND REMANDED
# C_2016428EN.01000601.xml

| 21.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 428/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 428/6

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Stuttgart (Germany) lodged on 22 August 2016 — Brigitte Schlömp v Landratsamt Schwäbisch Hall

(Case C-467/16)

(2016/C 428/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Amtsgericht Stuttgart

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Brigitte Schlömp

Applicant:

Defendant: Landratsamt Schwäbisch Hall

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Is an arbitration authority under Swiss law also covered by the term ‘court’ within the scope of Articles 27 and 30 of the Lugano Convention (1) of 30 October 2007 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (‘the 2007 Lugano Convention’)?

1

---

(1)  2009/430/EC: Council Decision of 27 November 2008 concerning the conclusion of the Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Declarations, OJ 2009 L 147, p. 1.

1

---
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the 

Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the 

Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound 

volumes go to press. 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

No. 21-BG-528

IN RE WILLIAM ELVIN HOPKINS, JR.

2021 DDN 146

A Member of the Bar of the 

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Bar Registration No. 1004177

BEFORE: Easterly and McLeese, Associate Judges, and Washington, Senior Judge.

O R D E R

(FILED—June 9, 2022)

On consideration of the certified copy of the order from the state of South 

Carolina suspending respondent from the practice of law in that state for three years 

by consent; this court’s April 7, 2022, order that continued respondent’s suspension

from the practice of law in this jurisdiction and directed him to show cause why 

reciprocal discipline should not be imposed, no response having been filed; 

respondent’s D.C. Bar R. XI, §14(g) affidavit filed on August 17, 2021; and the 

statement of Disciplinary Counsel wherein he requests that this court impose the 

functional equivalent reciprocal discipline in the form of a three-year suspension 

with a fitness requirement, it is 

ORDERED that William Elvin Hopkins, Jr. is hereby suspended from the 

practice of law in the District of Columbia for three years with reinstatement 

conditioned on a showing of fitness, nunc pro tunc to August 17, 2021. See In re 

Sibley, 990 A.2d 483 (D.C. 2010), and In re Fuller, 930 A.2d 194, 198 (D.C. 2007) 

(rebuttable presumption of identical reciprocal discipline applies unless one of the 

exceptions is established). 

PER CURIAM
EXHIBIT 2 

EXHIBIT 2 

Case 2:03-cv-05336-LDD Document 873-2 Filed 09/23/13 Page 1 of 36
Case 2:03-cv-05336-LDD Document 873-2 Filed 09/23/13 Page 2 of 36
Case 2:03-cv-05336-LDD Document 873-2 Filed 09/23/13 Page 3 of 36
Case 2:03-cv-05336-LDD Document 873-2 Filed 09/23/13 Page 4 of 36
Case 2:03-cv-05336-LDD Document 873-2 Filed 09/23/13 Page 5 of 36
Case 2:03-cv-05336-LDD Document 873-2 Filed 09/23/13 Page 6 of 36
Case 2:03-cv-05336-LDD Document 873-2 Filed 09/23/13 Page 7 of 36
Case 2:03-cv-05336-LDD Document 873-2 Filed 09/23/13 Page 8 of 36
Case 2:03-cv-05336-LDD Document 873-2 Filed 09/23/13 Page 9 of 36
Case 2:03-cv-05336-LDD Document 873-2 Filed 09/23/13 Page 10 of 36
Case 2:03-cv-05336-LDD Document 873-2 Filed 09/23/13 Page 11 of 36
Case 2:03-cv-05336-LDD Document 873-2 Filed 09/23/13 Page 12 of 36
Case 2:03-cv-05336-LDD Document 873-2 Filed 09/23/13 Page 13 of 36
Case 2:03-cv-05336-LDD Document 873-2 Filed 09/23/13 Page 14 of 36
Case 2:03-cv-05336-LDD Document 873-2 Filed 09/23/13 Page 15 of 36
Case 2:03-cv-05336-LDD Document 873-2 Filed 09/23/13 Page 16 of 36
Case 2:03-cv-05336-LDD Document 873-2 Filed 09/23/13 Page 17 of 36
Case 2:03-cv-05336-LDD Document 873-2 Filed 09/23/13 Page 18 of 36
Case 2:03-cv-05336-LDD Document 873-2 Filed 09/23/13 Page 19 of 36
Case 2:03-cv-05336-LDD Document 873-2 Filed 09/23/13 Page 20 of 36
Case 2:03-cv-05336-LDD Document 873-2 Filed 09/23/13 Page 21 of 36
Case 2:03-cv-05336-LDD Document 873-2 Filed 09/23/13 Page 22 of 36
Case 2:03-cv-05336-LDD Document 873-2 Filed 09/23/13 Page 23 of 36
Case 2:03-cv-05336-LDD Document 873-2 Filed 09/23/13 Page 24 of 36
Case 2:03-cv-05336-LDD Document 873-2 Filed 09/23/13 Page 25 of 36
Case 2:03-cv-05336-LDD Document 873-2 Filed 09/23/13 Page 26 of 36
Case 2:03-cv-05336-LDD Document 873-2 Filed 09/23/13 Page 27 of 36
Case 2:03-cv-05336-LDD Document 873-2 Filed 09/23/13 Page 28 of 36
Case 2:03-cv-05336-LDD Document 873-2 Filed 09/23/13 Page 29 of 36
Case 2:03-cv-05336-LDD Document 873-2 Filed 09/23/13 Page 30 of 36
Case 2:03-cv-05336-LDD Document 873-2 Filed 09/23/13 Page 31 of 36
Case 2:03-cv-05336-LDD Document 873-2 Filed 09/23/13 Page 32 of 36
Case 2:03-cv-05336-LDD Document 873-2 Filed 09/23/13 Page 33 of 36
Case 2:03-cv-05336-LDD Document 873-2 Filed 09/23/13 Page 34 of 36
Case 2:03-cv-05336-LDD Document 873-2 Filed 09/23/13 Page 35 of 36
Case 2:03-cv-05336-LDD Document 873-2 Filed 09/23/13 Page 36 of 36
Exhibit 99.1



                            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 annual report of Health Sciences Group,
Inc.  (the  "Company")  on Form 10-KSB for  the  fiscal  year  ended
December  31,  2002  as  filed  with  the  Securities  and  Exchange
Commission  on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Fred  E.  Tannous,
Chief  Executive  Officer, 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 Company.


                                   HEALTH SCIENCES GROUP, INC.

          June 10, 2003        By:  /s/ Fred E. Tannous
                                  ---------------------------
                                   Fred E. Tannous
                                   Chief Executive Officer,
                                   Chief Financial Officer,
                                   (Principal Financial Officer),
                                   and Co-chairman