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 included in this report and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          61,925
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,998,063
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (403,900)
<INVENTORY>                                  8,082,257
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            10,812,054
<PP&E>                                         490,721
<DEPRECIATION>                               (221,183)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,620,693
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        9,934,496
<BONDS>                                          8,671
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           422
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,353,615
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,620,693
<SALES>                                      6,821,522
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,821,522
<CGS>                                        4,617,761
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,617,761
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,706,630
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                53,900
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             186,894
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,696,754)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,673,299)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,673,299)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.40)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.40)



</TABLE>
# C_2017437EN.01003001.xml

| 18.12.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 437/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.12.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 437/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 November 2017 — Isocell v EUIPO — iCell (iCell.)

(Case T-776/16) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark iCell. - Earlier EU word mark Isocell, earlier international word mark Isocell and earlier international and national word marks ISOCELL - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2017/C 437/36)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Isocell GmbH (Neumarkt am Wallersee, Austria) (represented by: C. Thiele, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Schifko, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: iCell AB (Älvdalen, Sweden) (represented by: J. Kroher, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 September 2016 (Case R 2496/2015-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Isocell and iCell.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Isocell GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Isocell GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 14, 16.1.2017.

1

---
Exhibit 99.1








October
9, 2017





IRSA
Propiedades Comerciales S.A.


Moreno
877, 22nd
Floor


(C10191AAQ)


Buenos
Aires, Argentina








CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT APPRAISER








Newmark
Grubb Knight Frank (“NGKF”) hereby consents to the
reference to NGFK’s name, valuation methodologies,
assumptions and value conclusions for accounting purposes, with
respect to its appraisal reports addressed and previously delivered
to the board of directors of IRSA Propiedads Comerciales S.A. (the
“Company”), in the Company’s Annual Report on
Form 20-F (together with any amendments thereto, the “Annual
Report”) to be filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission. NGKF also hereby consents to the filing of this letter
as an exhibit to the Annual Report.








NEWMARK
GRUBB KNIGHT
FRANKBy:
/s/
Domingo
SperanzaName:
Domingo
SperanzaTitle:
CEO –
Executive Director
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains financial informationextracted from the consolidated
financial statements of SouthBanc Shares, Inc. for the nine months ended June
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>                              OCT-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                      $8,569,005
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       8,369,320
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 85,792,468
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                    236,646,021
<ALLOWANCE>                                (2,625,204)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             364,869,382
<DEPOSITS>                                 225,008,446
<SHORT-TERM>                                69,344,172
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          4,371,561
<LONG-TERM>                                 13,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    36,026,470
<OTHER-SE>                                  17,118,733
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             364,869,382
<INTEREST-LOAN>                             14,139,772
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            5,441,898
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            19,581,670
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           6,702,116
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          10,110,542
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        9,471,128
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  330,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             126,418
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              6,632,107
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              6,880,846
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   6,880,846
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 4,623,389
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.34
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.26
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.52
<LOANS-NON>                                  1,911,690
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                               437,200
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                147,310
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             2,507,049
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  116,243
<RECOVERIES>                                    37,405
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            2,625,205
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           147,310
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                      2,477,895


</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NICK P. TREHUBA; SANDI S.

TREHUBA,

 Plaintiffs-Appellants,

 v.

AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE

SERVICING INC, 

 Defendant,

 and

 OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, 

 Defendant-Appellee.

No. 15-35080

D.C. No. 3:12-cv-05752-RBL

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 11, 2017** 

Seattle, Washington

FILED

JUL 20 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Before: TASHIMA and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges, and WALTER, District

Judge.

*** 

After Plaintiff-Appellant Nick Trehuba1(“Trehuba”) admittedly defaulted

on his mortgage, Fidelity National Title Insurance Company (“Fidelity”)

successfully conducted a foreclosure sale on Trehuba’s home. Fidelity had been

appointed trustee by Defendant-Appellee Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (“Ocwen”),

acting as agent of the loan beneficiary, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company

(“Deutsche Bank”). Trehuba alleges that the appointment violated Washington’s

Consumer Protection Act (“CPA”), Wash. Rev. Code § 19.86.010 et seq, and

further constituted a material misrepresentation. 

The district court did not err in concluding that Trehuba cannot establish the

deceptive act, causation, injury or public interest elements of his CPA claim. See

Bain v. Metro. Mortg. Grp., Inc., 285 P.3d 34, 49 (Wash. 2012) (en banc) (quoting

Hangman Ridge Training Stables, Inc. v. Safeco Title Ins., 719 P.2d 531 (Wash.

1986) (en banc)). “Failure to satisfy even one of the elements is fatal to a CPA

claim.” Sorrel v. Eagle Healthcare, Inc., 38 P.3d 1024, 1028 (Wash. Ct. App.

 *** The Honorable Donald E. Walter, Senior United States District Judge

for the Western District of Louisiana, sitting by designation.

1

 Sandi Trehuba has been deceased since March 23, 2013, and no motion to

substitute her personal representative having been made, Sandi S. Trehuba is

dismissed as a party to this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 43(a)(1).

2
2002). Washington law permits agents to represent beneficiaries. See Bain, 285

P.3d at 45. Trehuba has failed to present any evidence that Ocwen’s appointment

of Fidelity was deceptive, much less that it was the cause of any injury. 

The district court also correctly dismissed Trehuba’s misrepresentation

claim for failure to establish that Trehuba relied upon any intentional or negligent

misrepresentation by Ocwen. See W. Coast, Inc. v. Snohomish Cty., 48 P.3d 997,

1000 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002) (citing Stiley v. Block, 925 P.2d 194, 204 (Wash.

1996) (en banc)) (valid claim for intentional misrepresentation requires showing of

plaintiff’s reliance thereon); ESCA Corp. v. KPMG Peat Marwick, 959 P.2d 651,

654 (Wash. 1998) (en banc) (same for negligent misrepresentation). 

AFFIRMED. 

3
The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, United States District Judge for the Eastern 1

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 98-1175

___________

Nicholas Szabo, *

 *

Appellant, *

 * Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

 * Eastern District of Missouri. 

Washington University Plan *

Administrator; Judy Mahoney, * [UNPUBLISHED]

 *

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: June 24, 1998

 Filed: June 29, 1998

___________

Before BOWMAN, Chief Judge, WOLLMAN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD,

Circuit Judges. 

___________

PER CURIAM.

Nicholas Szabo appeals from the district court&s grant of summary judgment to 1

defendants in his action alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income

Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1461, and violations of state law. Having
-2-

carefully reviewed the record and the parties& briefs, we affirm the judgment of the

district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ROBERT DADDIO, et al. : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. :

:

THE A.I. DUPONT HOSPITAL FOR :

CHILDREN OF THE NEMOURS :

FOUNDATION, et al. : NO. 05-441

 ORDER

AND NOW, this 21st day of August, 2009, upon

consideration of the defendants’ Motion to Preclude Expert

Testimony Under Daubert and Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of

Evidence (Docket No. 129), the plaintiffs’ oppositions (Docket

Nos. 136, 142, 200), the defendants’ replies thereto (Docket Nos.

134, 202), as well as the various other filings and letters

received from the parties on these issues, and upon further

consideration of the arguments and evidence presented by the

parties at various hearings on September 16, 2008 (Docket No.

127), March 11, 2009 (Docket No. 143), June 24, 2009 (Docket No.

196), and July 7, 2009 (Docket No. 198), and for the reasons

stated in a memorandum of law bearing today’s date, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that said motion is GRANTED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, for the reasons stated in the

memorandum of law bearing today’s date, that the defendants’

Case 2:05-cv-00441-MAM Document 205 Filed 08/21/09 Page 1 of 2
Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 201) is GRANTED. 

Judgment is hereby entered for the defendants on the plaintiffs’

medical negligence and informed consent claims.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Mary A. McLaughlin

MARY A. McLAUGHLIN, J.

Case 2:05-cv-00441-MAM Document 205 Filed 08/21/09 Page 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-6596

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus KERMIT C. BROWN, a/k/a Brian Mackey, a/k/a Destruction, a/k/a Bear, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:98-cr-00047-JBF) Submitted: July 19, 2007 Decided: July 25, 2007 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kermit C. Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Darryl James Mitchell, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Kermit C. Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s orders construing his “Petitioner’s Request for Judicial Assistance and Instructions on Avenue for Correction of Violation of His Substantial Rights” as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, and dismissing it on that basis, and denying his subsequent motion for reconsideration. Brown’s motion for reconsideration was not filed within ten days of the district court’s order dismissing his request for judicial assistance as a successive § 2255 motion as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). The time for appealing that order expired before he filed his notice of appeal on April 3, 2007, and therefore only the denial of the motion for reconsideration is preserved for appeal. SeeAlston v. MCI Commc’ns Corp. , 84 F.3d 705, 706 (4th Cir. 1996) (only a timely Rule 59(e) motion tolls time period for filing notice of appeal); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(iv)-(vi). The order denying reconsideration is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any- 3 - dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Brown has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, a nd dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board

          - [S-214-2023]

An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board by Georgina Foreign-Trade Zone, Inc., grantee of FTZ 26, requesting subzone status for the facilities of Helena Industries, LLC, located in Cordele, Georgia. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on November 8, 2023.

                    The proposed subzone would consist of the following sites:                     *Site 1*                     (33 acres) 434 Fenn Road, Cordele, Georgia; and,                     *Site 2*                     (9.2 acres) 1198 Highway 280, Cordele, Georgia. A notification of proposed production activity has been submitted and is being processed under 15 CFR 400.37 (Doc. B-54-2023). The proposed subzone would be subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 26.                

In accordance with the FTZ Board's regulations, Christopher Kemp of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make recommendations to the Executive Secretary.

                    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary and sent to:                     *ftz@trade.gov.*                     The closing period for their receipt is December 26, 2023. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to January 8, 2024.                

                    A copy of the application will be available for public inspection in the “Online FTZ Information Section” section of the FTZ Board's website, which is accessible via                     *www.trade.gov/​ftz.*

                    For further information, contact Christopher Kemp at                     *Christopher.Kemp@trade.gov.*

Dated: November 8, 2023.

Elizabeth Whiteman,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2023-25050 Filed 11-13-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
No. 50370.

#### Protests 94441-K, etc., of China Import *&*Export Co. et al. (Los Angeles, etc.).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

JERMAINE LASTER § No. 94, 2015

§

Defendant Below

- Appellant, § Court Below:

§

v. § Superior Court of the

§ State of Delaware, in and for

STATE OF DELAWARE, § New Castle County

§

Plaintiff Below

- Appellee. § Cr. I.D. No. 1307014887

Submitted: October 14

, 2015

Decided: October 15 , 2015

Before STRINE , Chief Justice, HOLLAND and VALIHURA

, Justices.

O R D E R

This 15 th day of October 2015 , the Court, havi ng considered this matter on the

briefs of the parties, has concluded that the same should be affirmed on the basis of and

for the reasons assigned by the Superior Court in its Order dated June 27, 2014

.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED t hat the Order of the

Superior Court be, and the same hereby is , AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihur a

Justice
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 115 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of Veterans 

Affairs to provide for an operation on a live donor for purposes of 

conducting a transplant procedure for a veteran, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 12, 2017 

Mr. HELLER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the 

Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide for an operation 

on a live donor for purposes of conducting a transplant 

procedure for a veteran, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Veterans Transplant 

5 Coverage Act’’. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 115 IS

1 SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION TO PROVIDE FOR OPERATIONS ON 

2 LIVE DONORS FOR PURPOSES OF CON3 DUCTING TRANSPLANT PROCEDURES FOR 

4 VETERANS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter VIII of chapter 17 of 

6 title 38, United States Code, is amended by adding at the 

7 end the following new section: 

8 ‘‘§ 1788. Transplant procedures with live donors and 

9 related services 

10 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—In a case in which a veteran is 

11 eligible for a transplant procedure from the Department, 

12 the Secretary may provide for an operation on a live donor 

13 to carry out such procedure for such veteran notwith14 standing that the live donor may not be eligible for health 

15 care from the Department. 

16 ‘‘(b) OTHER SERVICES.—The Secretary shall furnish 

17 to a live donor any care or services before and after con18 ducting the transplant procedure under subsection (a) 

19 that may be required in connection with such procedure.’’. 

20 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

21 at the beginning of chapter 17 of such title is amended 

22 by inserting after the item relating to section 1787 the 

23 following new item: 

‘‘1788. Transplant procedures with live donors and related services.’’. 

Æ 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32 (a)

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 Northland Cable Television, Inc. and
Subsidiary (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Form
10-Q"), I, John Whetzell, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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 Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a)
      or (15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78(d));
      and

      (2) The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      the Company.

DATE: 8-15-05

/s/ JOHN S. WHETZELL
    --------------------------------
John S. Whetzell
Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement will be retained by Northland Cable
Television, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.