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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               FEB-27-1999        
<PERIOD-END>                                    AUG-29-1998        
<CASH>                                                        517  
<SECURITIES>                                                    0  
<RECEIVABLES>                                              52,319  
<ALLOWANCES>                                               (1,379) 
<INVENTORY>                                                58,819  
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                          116,518  
<PP&E>                                                     40,159  
<DEPRECIATION>                                             24,105  
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                            241,793  
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                      55,517  
<BONDS>                                                   328,952  
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                         156  
<PREFERRED>                                                16,035  
<COMMON>                                                        0  
<OTHER-SE>                                               (155,470) 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                              241,793  
<SALES>                                                   116,170  
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                          116,170  
<CGS>                                                      79,941  
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                              79,941  
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                           28,855  
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                0  
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                         13,237  
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                            (5,863) 
<INCOME-TAX>                                               (2,620) 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                        (3,243) 
<DISCONTINUED>                                                  0  
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                 0  
<CHANGES>                                                       0  
<NET-INCOME>                                               (3,243) 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                   0  
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                   0  
                                                                   
                                               

</TABLE>
No. 50890.

#### Protest 46362-K of Dean & Kite Co. (Cleveland).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the court found that the facts herein agreed upon were such as to bring the case within *226the holding in *John Barr*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 88, C. D. 801). which record was incorporated herein. (See *John Barr*v. *United States,*324 U. S. 83, decided February 5, 1945.) In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoices should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on each of the entries. The protest was sustained to this extent.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1494 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1494

 To amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act in order to increase 
            the dividend exclusion, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 29, 2017

 Ms. Murkowski (for herself and Mr. Sullivan) introduced the following 
bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act in order to increase 
            the dividend exclusion, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``ANCSA Dividend Exclusion Act of 
2017''.

SEC. 2. DIVIDEND EXCLUSION INCREASE.

    Section 29(c)(A) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 
U.S.C. 1626(c)(A)) is amended by striking ``exceed $2,000 per 
individual per annum'' and inserting the following: ``exceed--
                    ``(i) for any calendar year preceding 2017, $2,000 
                per individual per annum; and
                    ``(ii) for calendar year 2017 and all subsequent 
                calendar years, $5,000 per individual per annum, to be 
                adjusted for inflation in fiscal year 2022, and every 5 
                years thereafter, by increasing the amount provided 
                under this subparagraph for the preceding year by the 
                percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for All 
                Urban Consumers, as published by the Bureau of Labor 
                Statistics, during the preceding 5-year period;''.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2017424EN.01003101.xml

| 11.12.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 424/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.12.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 424/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 October 2017 — Hello Media Group v EUIPO — Hola (#hello media group)

(Case T-331/16) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark #hello media group - Earlier EU figurative and word marks HELLO! - 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 424/44)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Hello Media Group, SL (Madrid, Spain), authorised to replace Hello Media, SL (represented by: A. Alejos Cutuli, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Hola, SL (Madrid) (represented by: F. Arroyo Álvarez de Toledo, 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 Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 April 2016 (Case R 2012/2015-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Hola and Hello Media.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Hello Media Group, SL, to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Hello Media Group, SL, to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 296, 16.8.2016.

1

---
# C_2017006EN.01003802.xml

| 9.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/38

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 11 November 2016 — Solelec and Others v Parliament

Solelec and Others

Parliament

(Case T-281/16 R)

((Interim measures - Public works contracts - Tendering procedure - Electrical work (high-voltage current) as part of the project for the extension and refurbishment of the Parliament’s Konrad Adenauer building in Luxembourg - Rejection of the bid submitted by a tenderer and decision to award the contract to another tenderer - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Lack of urgency))

(2017/C 006/48)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Solelec SA (Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg), Mannelli & Associés SA (Bertrange), Paul Wagner et fils SA (Luxembourg), Socom SA (Foetz) (represented by: S. Marx, lawyer)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: M. Mraz and L. Chrétien, agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action on the basis of Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU seeking suspension of the operation, first, of the decision of the Parliament of 27 May 2016 to reject the tender submitted by the applicants for lot No 75 in connection with a call for tenders with reference INLO-D-UPIL-T-15-AO6, concerning the project for the extension and refurbishment of the Konrad Adenauer building in Luxembourg and, secondly, of the decision awarding that lot to another tenderer.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The order of 9 June 2016 delivered in Case T-281/16 R is set aside. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The order of 9 June 2016 delivered in Case T-281/16 R is set aside.

| 3. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The costs are reserved.

---
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1529 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand eligibility for the 

refundable credit for coverage under a qualified health plan. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 11, 2017 

Ms. HEITKAMP (for herself, Mrs. SHAHEEN, and Mr. KING) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand 

eligibility for the refundable credit for coverage under 

a qualified health plan. 

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 ‘‘Addressing Afford5 ability for More Americans Act of 2017’’. 

6 SEC. 2. INCREASE IN ELIGIBILITY FOR CREDIT. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraph (A) of section 

8 36B(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amend9 ed by striking ‘‘400 percent’’ and inserting ‘‘800 percent’’. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1529 IS

1 (b) APPLICABLE PERCENTAGES.—The table con2 tained in clause (i) of section 36B(b)(3)(A) of the Internal 

3 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking the period 

4 at the end of the last row and by adding at the end the 

5 following new rows: 

‘‘400% up to 550% ................................................ 9.5% 11%

550% up to 700% .................................................. 11% 13%

700% up to 800% .................................................. 13% 15%.’’. 

6 (c) LIMITATION ON RECAPTURE.—Clause (i) of sec7 tion 36B(f)(2)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 

8 is amended— 

9 (1) by striking ‘‘400 percent’’ and inserting 

10 ‘‘800 percent’’; 

11 (2) by striking the period at the end of the last 

12 row of the table; and 

13 (3) by adding at the end of the table the fol14 lowing new rows: 

‘‘At least 400% but less than 600% .............................................. $3,500

At least 600% but less than 800% ................................................ $4,500.’’. 

15 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

16 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

17 December 31, 2017. 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
# C_2019044EN.01002301.xml

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 4 December 2018 — Carreras Sequeros and Others v Commission

(Case T-518/16) (1)

((Civil service - Officials and members of the contractual staff - Reform of the Staff Regulations of 1 January 2014 - Article 6 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations - New provisions relating to annual leave applicable to officials posted in a third country - Objection of illegality - Purpose of annual leave))

(2019/C 44/28)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Francisco Carreras Sequeros (Addis Ababa, Ethiopia) and the five other applicants whose names are annexed to the judgment (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: J. Currall and G. Gattinara, and subsequently by: G. Gattinara and A.-C. Simon, Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Parliament (represented by: J. Steele and E. Taneva, Agents) and Council of the European Union (represented initially by M. Bauer and M. Veiga, and subsequently by M. Bauer and R. Meyer, Agents),

Re:

Action under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of the decisions reducing the number of days of annual leave of the applicants as from 2014.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decisions reducing the number of days of annual leave for 2014 of Mr Francisco Carreras Sequeros and the other officials or members of staff of the European Commission whose names are annexed to the judgment; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decisions reducing the number of days of annual leave for 2014 of Mr Francisco Carreras Sequeros and the other officials or members of staff of the European Commission whose names are annexed to the judgment;

| 2. | Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Francisco Carreras Sequeros and the other officials or members of staff of the Commission whose names are annexed to the judgment, and |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Francisco Carreras Sequeros and the other officials or members of staff of the Commission whose names are annexed to the judgment, and

| 3. | Orders the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 7, 12.1.2015 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under number F-88/14 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).

---
# Main

&"Arial,Bold"Part 2SUPPLEMENTUSSGL Crosswalk- Reclassified Statement of Operations and Changes in Net Position		&"Arial,Bold"Fiscal Year 2018 ReportingSection VI

&"Arial,Bold"Bulletin No. 2018-04	&"Arial,Bold"DRAFT VI RSONP - &P	&"Arial,Bold"IRC Handout March 1, 2018

# Footnotes and Additional Inform

&"Arial,Bold"Part 2SUPPLEMENTUSSGL Crosswalk- Reclassified Statement of Operations and Changes in Net Position		&"Arial,Bold"Fiscal Year 2018 ReportingSection VI

&"Arial,Bold"Bulletin No. 2018-04	&"Arial,Bold"DRAFT VI RSONP - &[12	&"Arial,Bold"IRC Handout March 1,2018
6 L EAD ∙ T RANSFORM ∙ D ELIVER

New Timeline• Identify all FY 2021 Lessons Learned – 02/2022

• Work with agencies and auditors to identify changes n

TFM 2‐4700 and OMB A‐136 – 03/2022 to 06/2022

• Review periods/clearances of guidance for FY 2023 TF

and OMB A‐136 – 07/2022 to 09/2022

• Issue FY 2023 TFM 2‐4700 – 11/16/2022

• USSGL Board Meeting and Issue USSGL TFM Suppleme

12/2022

• Issue FY 2023 OMB A‐136 – Spring 2023

Agency Financial

Statements

Financial Report of

the U.S. Government

Identify

Changes

Review/

Clearance TFM 2‐4700

USSGL Board Meeting

and USSGL TFM

Supplement

OM
Case No. 13,110.

#### SMITH v. STOOPS.

[1 Cranch, C. C. 238.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

June Term, 1805.

Pleading at Law — When Statute op Limitations may be Pleaded.

After office judgment the court will not receive a plea of the statuate of limitations.

*663Mr. Edward J. Lee

moved to set aside the office judgment by pleading the statute of limitations. Refused; the court saying that it had always been refused. See Hooff v. Herbert (November, 1803 [Case No. 6,670]).

In the case of Carne v. McLean [Case No. 2,416], at this term,

THE COURT

ordered the plea of limitations to be struck out, it having been filed after office judgment.

FITZHUGH, Circuit Judge, contra.
No. 63611.

protest 328581-K (New York).

#### Louis Goldey Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial, it was stipulated that the merchandise consists of glazed tiles, measuring 414 by 4% inches, although shown on the consular invoice as being 4% by 4% inches in size; that duty was assessed upon an amount in excess of that actually imported; and that the following quantities were imported: Invoice No. 1, cases 1 to 1,000, on a quantity of 15,000 square feet, and invoice No. 4, cases 1 to 2,000, on a quantity of 30,000 square feet. Accordingly, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained as to said merchandise.
# Sheet1

&"Arial,Bold"Part 1SUPPLEMENT &"ARIAL,Regular"	&"Arial,Bold"&16&KFF0000DRAFT	&"Arial,Bold"Fiscal Year 2021 ReportingSection VII  &"ARIAL,Regular"

&"Arial,Bold"Bulletin No. 2021-17	&"Arial,Bold"&KFF0000DRAFT&K000000 VII ESR - &P	&"Arial,Bold"IRC Handout 4/21/21
#### James E. LEAHY, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 00-3591.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted June 13, 2001.

Filed June 25, 2001.

Before WOLLMAN, Chief Judge, BOWMAN and HAMILTON,1 Circuit Judges.

1

. The Honorable Clyde H. Hamilton, United States Circuit Judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM.

The District Court2 granted the government’s motion for summary judgment in this Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) suit brought by James E. Leahy, who appeals. He argues there are material issues of disputed fact that make summary judgment inappropriate. Having reviewed the record, we disagree.

The circumstances of Mr. Leahy’s slip-and-fall in the federal courthouse in Fargo are not in dispute. Because the record lacks evidence that would support a finding as to either the source of the small spot of water on which Mr. Leahy slipped or how long it had been there, a fact-finder could only speculate as to whether its presence was the result of negligence on the part of a government employee or agent. There being no evidence to make a submissible case on thé question whether the government breached its duty to take reasonable care to maintain the premises in a safe condition, we discern no error in the District Court’s grant of summary judgment for the United States.

Mr. Leahy also argues that the District Court erred in dismissing at an earlier stage of the proceedings his claim that negligence on the part of Vocational Training Center (VTC), a contractor hired *443by GSA to perform cleaning and maintenance services for the portion of the building where Mr. Leahy slipped, is attributable to the United States. The court determined on the undisputed facts of the relationship between the government and VTC that VTC is an independent contractor and that because the United States has not waived its immunity from suit for the negligence of independent contractors, the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Mr. Leahy’s complaint insofar as his FTCA claim rested upon alleged negligence on the part of VTC. Having considered Mr. Leahy’s arguments for reversal on this point, we are satisfied that the District Court’s ruling is correct.

For the reasons stated, the judgment of the District Court is affirmed. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

2

. The Honorable Patrick A. Conmy, United States District Judge for the District of North Dakota.
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, Kenneth A. Shewer, Co-Chief Executive Officer of the Managing Owner, Preferred Investment Solutions
Corp. (the Managing Owner), of World Monitor Trust  Series A (Series A), hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | Series As Quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Quarterly
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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Series A.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                          
|--------------------------
|/s/ Kenneth A. Shewer     
|Kenneth A. Shewer         
|Co-Chief Executive Officer
|August 14, 2006
Exhibit
      32.2





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


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


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


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





In
      connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K (the “Report”) of I.D. Systems,
      Inc. (the “Corporation”) for the year ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Ned Mavrommatis,
      Chief
      Financial Officer of the Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
      adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge,
      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
      Corporation.




Dated: March 14, 2008
            /s/
                Ned MavrommatisName:
                Ned MavrommatisTitle:
                Chief Financial Officer





The
      foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of
      the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter
      63
      of Title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report
      or
      as a separate disclosure document.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authenticating, 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 the Corporation and will be retained by
      the
      Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
      staff
      upon request.
Superintendent of Documents Order Form

Order Processing Code: *3264 

Type your data into boxes below and then print for mailing/faxing.

YES, send me

subscription(s) to Treasury Bulletin (TRBU) at $51.00 domestic (64.40 foreign) per year

The total cost of my order is $

Price includes regular shipping and handling and is subject to change.

Personal name:

Company name:

Street address:

City, State, Zip Code+4:

email address:

Daytime phone including area code:

Purchase order number (optional):

Check method of payment:

Check payable to Superintendent of Documents 

(mail orders only)

GPO Deposit Account

MasterCard

VISA

Discover/Novus

Credit card no: expires: (mm/yy)

_______________________________________________________________________________

Authorizing signature if mailed or faxed. 4/00

Fax form to 202-512-2250. Phone orders to 202-512-1800 (7:30am-4:30pm EST). 

Mail form to Superintendent of Documents, PO Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954.