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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FILED AS
PART OF THE QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ON FORM 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000
       
<S>                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                    DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                       JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                         JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                                     1,118
<SECURITIES>                                               6,509
<RECEIVABLES>                                              9,143
<ALLOWANCES>                                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                                5,108
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                          22,399
<PP&E>                                                    95,205
<DEPRECIATION>                                            34,601
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                            90,187
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                      7,690
<BONDS>                                                   32,682
<COMMON>                                                   2,740
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                          0
<PREFERRED>                                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                                                22,222
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                              90,187
<SALES>                                                   17,005
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                          31,833
<CGS>                                                     11,188
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                             20,094
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                         2,046
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                            1,288
<INCOME-TAX>                                                 579
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                          709
<DISCONTINUED>                                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                0
<CHANGES>                                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                                 709
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                               0.55
<EPS-DILUTED>                                               0.38
        

</TABLE>
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports.

Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum

opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain

computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of

Appeals and does not include the filing date. 

1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 CHARLES D. HOBSON,

3 Petitioner-Appellant,

4 v. No. A-1-CA-37594

5 GLORIA HOBSON,

6 Respondent-Appellee,

7 and

8 STATE OF NEW MEXICO ex rel.

9 HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT,

10 Intervenor.

11 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY

12 Debra Ramirez, District Judge

13 Charles D. Hobson

14 Cedar Crest, NM 

15 Pro Se Appellant

16 Gloria Hobson

17 Albuquerque, NM

18 Pro Se Appellee

19 Becky S. Jiron
2

1 Albuquerque, NM 

2 for Intervenor

3 MEMORANDUM OPINION

4 VANZI, Chief Judge.

5 {1} Petitioner, a self-represented litigant, appeals from the district court’s

6 memorandum order. In this Court’s notice of proposed disposition, we proposed

7 summary affirmance. Petitioner filed a memorandum in opposition (MIO), which we

8 have duly considered. Remaining unpersuaded, we affirm.

9 {2} In his memorandum in opposition, Petitioner continues to argue that the district

10 court abused its discretion because it did not consider his future income when making

11 its determination regarding spousal support [MIO 1-3] and that the law cited in his

12 docketing statement in fact requires him to continue making payments, regardless of

13 whether his ex-wife wishes to receive such payments and regardless of the fact that

14 all of their children are no longer minors [MIO 3-5]. Petitioner has not asserted any

15 new facts, law, or argument, and has not otherwise persuaded us that our notice of

16 proposed disposition was erroneous. See Hennessy v. Duryea, 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24,

17 124 N.M. 754, 955 P.2d 683 (“Our courts have repeatedly held that, in summary

18 calendar cases, the burden is on the party opposing the proposed disposition to clearly

19 point out errors in fact or law.”); State v. Mondragon, 1988-NMCA-027, ¶ 10, 107
3

1 N.M. 421, 759 P.2d 1003 (stating that a party responding to a summary calendar

2 notice must come forward and specifically point out errors of law and fact, and the

3 repetition of earlier arguments does not fulfill this requirement), superseded by statute

4 on other grounds as stated in State v. Harris, 2013-NMCA-031, ¶ 3, 297 P.3d 374.

5 We therefore refer Petitioner to our analysis therein.

6 {3} Accordingly, for the reasons stated in our notice of proposed disposition and

7 herein, we affirm the district court’s order.

8 {4} IT IS SO ORDERED.

9 

10 LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge

11 WE CONCUR:

12 

13 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge 

14 

15 JULIE J. VARGAS, Judge
EXHIBIT 32


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the
undersigned officer Scott Hill Acquisition Corporation
(the "Company"), hereby certify to my knowledge that:

The Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016
of the Company fully complies, in all material respects,
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the
Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by
the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.


                             /s/ James Cassidy
                                 Chief Executive Officer
                                 Chief Financial Officer
Date: April 11, 2016
# C_2016038EN.01001801.xml

| 1.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/18

---

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 21 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Košiciach — Slovakia) — Kovozber s. r. o. v Daňový úrad Košice

(Case C-120/15) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 183 - Refund of excess VAT - National legislation prescribing that default interest relating to the refund of excess VAT is to be calculated only as from ten days after completion of a tax inspection))

(2016/C 038/26)

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Referring court

Krajský súd v Košiciach

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Kovozber s. r. o.

Applicant:

Defendant: Daňový úrad Košice

Defendant:

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

The first paragraph of Article 183 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which prescribes that default interest relating to the refund of excess value added tax is to be calculated only as from ten days after completion of the tax inspection.

---

(1)  OJ C 213, 29.6.2015.

1

---
Case No. 8,605.

#### LUMA v. ATLANTIC MUT. INS. CO.

[13 Hunt, Mer. Mag. 557.]

Circuit Court, D. Massachusetts.

Dec., 1845.

Marine Insurance —Recovery — Distinct and Separate Loss — One Loss Being Consequent upon a Previous One — Province of Jury.

[1. Distinct and separate losses on one voyage cannot be added together to make up an average of 5 per cent, under an insurance policy.]

[2. It is a question for the jury whether the losses to a vessel m two gales, ten days apart, in the first of which she lost part of her sails and bulwarks, and íd the second the movables on deck, were distinct, or consequent one upon the other, so as to constitute a single loss, averaging 5 per cent., under the policy.]

This was an action of assumpsit, in which the plaintiff sought to recover of the defendants a partial loss on a policy, made by them, March 4. 1814, on the brig Columbia, on a voyage from Boston to Savannah. It appeared in evidence, that the brig sailed on this voyage about the 10th of March; that on the 17th of the same month, she experienced a gale and a heavy sea, which blew away the fore top-mast staysail, carried away a great part of the bulwarks, and monkey rail, stove in the cook’s galley, and shipped several very heavy seas, which made her labor very hard; that after this she continued the voyage, lying to in two or three instances, but with generally moderate weather, carrying all sail, till the 27th of March, when she experienced another gale, and shipped a sea, burying the brig all up in a clear sheet of foam, and swept her decks of her jolly-boat, spars, roundhouse, and two water casks, the fore spencer being also carried away. There was no other loss on the voyage. There were several questions of law, raised by the defendants, growing out of other evidence, and the transactions for a settlement of the loss, a reference of the matter having been made by the plaintiff’s agents in Boston, and a decision given by the arbitrator against his claim, by which he refused to abide. But the main question raised, was, whether these two losses could be added together to make an average of five per cent, under the policy; and upon this point there was considerable evidence.

HELD

BY THE COURT

(WOODBURY, Circuit Justice)

that distinct and separate losses on the vessel, could not be added to getlier to make up five per cent., and that the *1110assured could not recover, unless lie proved a single loss to that amount; but that it was a question for the jury, whether the losses here were distinct or not; that where one loss was consequent.upon another, however remote in time, it was to be taken as part of the antecedent loss, and if both amounted to five per cent., the assured would recover.

THE COURT left to the jury three questions, upon which they were to find specific answers. The only one of these material to the report of the case upon the foregoing facts, was, whether there was any loss consequent upon the cause, amounting to five per cent. Upon this, the jury found there was such a loss, and assessed the damages at $230, the amount claimed by the plaintiff being $394.
# C_2015337EN.01000201.xml

| 12.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 337/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 337/2

---

Appeal brought on 6 February 2015 by Arthur Lambauer against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 11 December 2014 in Case T-490/14, Arthur Lambauer v Council of the European Union

(Case C-52/15 P)

(2015/C 337/02)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Arthur Lambauer

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Other party to the proceedings:

By order of 3 September 2015 the Court of Justice of the European Union (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to bear his own costs.

---
```

[110th Congress Public Law 139]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[DOCID: f:publ139.110]

[[Page 121 STAT. 1491]]

Public Law 110-139
110th Congress

                                 An Act

 
 To provide that the great hall of the Capitol Visitor Center shall be 
   known as Emancipation Hall. <<NOTE: Dec. 18, 2007 -  [H.R. 3315]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. <<NOTE: 40 USC 5101 note.>> DESIGNATION OF GREAT HALL 
                              OF THE CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER AS 
                              EMANCIPATION HALL.

    (a) In General.--The great hall of the Capitol Visitor Center shall 
be known and designated as ``Emancipation Hall'', and any reference to 
the great hall in any law, rule, or regulation shall be deemed to be a 
reference to Emancipation Hall.
    (b) Effective Date.--This section shall apply on and after the date 
of the enactment of this Act.

    Approved December 18, 2007.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 3315:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 110-436 (Comm. on Transportation and Infrastructure).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 153 (2007):
            Nov. 13, considered and passed House.
            Dec. 6, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
Before the Second Division,

May 6, 1952

No. 56632.

protests 161089-K, etc. (New York).

#### J. S. Staedtler, Inc., and Rohner, Gehrig & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is similar in all material respects to that the subject of Abstract 54854, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
# C_2015171EN.01001801.xml

| 26.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/18

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Sala de lo Civil) (Spain) lodged on 27 February 2015 — Christian Liffers v Producciones Mandarina, S.L. and Gestevisión Telecinco, S.A.

(Case C-99/15)

(2015/C 171/21)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo (Sala de lo Civil)

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Christian Liffers

Applicant:

Defendants: Producciones Mandarina, S.L. and Gestevisión Telecinco, S.A.

Defendants:

Question referred

Question referred

| 1. | May Article 13(1) of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights be interpreted as meaning that the party injured by an intellectual property infringement who claims damages for pecuniary loss based on the amount of royalties or fees that would be due if the infringer had requested authorisation to use the intellectual property right in question cannot also claim damages for the moral prejudice suffered? |
| --- | --- |

1.

May Article 13(1) of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights be interpreted as meaning that the party injured by an intellectual property infringement who claims damages for pecuniary loss based on the amount of royalties or fees that would be due if the infringer had requested authorisation to use the intellectual property right in question cannot also claim damages for the moral prejudice suffered?

1

---

(1)  OJ 2004 L 157, p. 45.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
COMPANY'S  BALANCE  SHEET AND  STATEMENT OF  OPERATIONS  AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND THE NOTE THERETO.

</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jan-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   Jun-30-1999
<CASH>                                                 283
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                         1107
<ALLOWANCES>                                           130
<INVENTORY>                                           1009
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      2632
<PP&E>                                                1026
<DEPRECIATION>                                         803
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        3434
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                  616
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                              3160
<OTHER-SE>                                               0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          3434
<SALES>                                               3171
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      3171
<CGS>                                                 1223
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         1223
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      2163
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    (13)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      (202)
<INCOME-TAX>                                          (44)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  (158)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                         (158)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (.01)


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND INCOME STATEMENT OF UGI UTILITIES, INC.
AS OF AND FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN UGI UTILITIES'
QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000100548
<NAME> UGI UTILITIES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           3,567
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   56,962
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,349
<INVENTORY>                                     27,016
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                93,202
<PP&E>                                         805,090
<DEPRECIATION>                                 257,963
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 716,722
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          157,006
<BONDS>                                        180,032
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           20,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        60,259
<OTHER-SE>                                     163,627
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   716,722
<SALES>                                        112,770
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               112,770
<CGS>                                           55,336
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   55,336
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   820
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,438
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 21,014
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,981
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             13,033
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    13,033
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0<F1>
<FN>
<F1>THERE ARE NO PUBLICLY HELD SHARES OUTSTANDING.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
(Reap. Dec. 9786)

#### Garod Radio Corporation *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 721604; 739565.

(Decided September 27, 1960)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn fov*the plaintiff.

*George Coohran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Lawrence, Judge:

When the above-enumerated appeals for a re-appraisement were called for hearing, plaintiff offered no testimony but submitted the cases on the records before the court.

An examination of the official papers discloses no reason for disturbing the presumptively correct value for the merchandise found by the appraiser.

I, therefore, find and hold the proper dutiable value of the merchandise covered by these appeals to be the value found by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
# C_2016090EN.01000601.xml

| 7.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 90/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 90/6

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 15 December 2015 — Jan Šalplachta

(Case C-670/15)

(2016/C 090/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Party to the main proceedings

Party to the main proceedings

Applicant: Jan Šalplachta

Applicant:

Question referred

Question referred

Does the right of a natural person to effective access to justice in a cross-border dispute within the meaning of Articles 1 and 2 of Council Directive 2003/8/EC of 27 January 2003 to improve access to justice in cross-border disputes by establishing minimum common rules relating to legal aid for such disputes (1) require that legal aid granted by the Federal Republic of Germany must extend to the costs incurred by the applicant for the translation of the declaration and supporting documents annexed to the legal aid application, where the applicant, at the same time as bringing the action, applies for legal aid to the court hearing the case, which is also the competent receiving authority within the meaning of Article 13(1)(b) of the directive, and he has himself arranged for the translation to be made?

1

---

(1)  OJ 2003 L 26, p. 41, corrigendum OJ 2003 L 32, p. 1.

1

---
# C_2017112EN.01003101.xml

| 10.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/31

---

Order of the President of the Court of 23 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Castellón — Spain) — Banco Popular Español SA v Elena Lucaciu, Cristian Laurentiu Lucaciu

(Case C-349/15) (1)

1

(2017/C 112/41)

Language of the case: Spanish

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 302, 4.9.2015.

1

---