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 AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1999, AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT
OF OPERATIONS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-02-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          27,124
<SECURITIES>                                     2,432
<RECEIVABLES>                                   74,165
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,510
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               115,609
<PP&E>                                          22,465
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,274
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 200,713
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           60,443
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            43
<OTHER-SE>                                     140,227
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   200,713
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               260,460
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  154,531
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                95,361
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 645
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,849
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,602
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,247
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  2,113
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,134
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.03


</TABLE>
No. 55663.

#### A. G. Skourtsis *v.*United States,

protest 168162-K (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

When this case was called for trial there was no appearance on the part of the plaintiff. An examination of the record failing to disclose evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the collector’s classification, the protest was overruled.
#### Jesse Wright, plaintiff in error, *vs.*Martin A. Britton, defendant in error.

*Error to Van Barm.*

Whore a declaration in slander, contains two or more counts, charging slanderous words to have been spoken at different times, and the words charged in one count, are proved to have been spoken on the very day laid in that count; if the defendant proves a justification for speaking the same, the words contained in a second count, if spoken in August previous to those alleged and proven in the first, will not support the action of slander.

This was an action of slander instituted by Martin A, Britton against Jesse Wright. A trial was had at the September term 1842, and a verdict and judgment rendered for the plaintiff, for twenty dollars damages and costs.

To reverse this judgment the defendant below has brought up the cause by a writ of error.

The exceptions to the action of the court below are embodied in the opinion of the court here.

*287Hall, for plaintiff in error.

Weight, for defendant in error.

Per Curiam,

Mason, Chief Justice.

The errors assigned in this case all rest upon the following bill of exceptions :

> *“*Be it known, that on the trial of this case the defendant asked the court to instruct the jury, that if the defendant has given evidence proving slanderous words spoken on the day laid in the declaration, that, words spoken in August previous to the time laid in the declaration could only be evidence to be considered by the jury as evidence of malice, and that if they found the defendant justified in speaking the words on the day laid in the declaration, that the jury could not find the defendant guilty of the former speaking. Which instruction the court refused, but instructed the jury that they might find the defendant guilty of the former speaking, provided the words were charged in the declaration and in another count.”

The instruction of the court which is here excepted to, we understand to be substantially as follows : “ That where a declaration in slander, contains two or more counts, charging slauderous words to have^been spoken at different times, and the words charged in one count are proved to have been spoken on the very day laid in that count, if the defendant proves a justification for speaking the same, then words contained in a second count, if spoken in August previous to those alleged and proven in the first, will not support the action of slander.”

As this case is submitted without argument, and as we see no ground for the position assumed by the plaintiff in error, we shall content ourselves with simply affirming the judgment of the court below.
#### Jennie STABILE, Trustee of the Stabile Family Trust Agreement dated May 1, 1990, petitioner, v. CALIFORNIA FEDERAL BANK, et al.

No. 98-1642.

Supreme Court of the United States.

June 14, 1999.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, denied.
No. 45330.

#### Protest 950177-G of M. Pressner & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

It was stipulated that the items in question are similar to those the subject of Abstract 40493. The claim at 45 percent under paragraph 409 was therefore sustained.
No. 47767.

#### Protests 9683-K, etc., of Peter J. Schweitzer, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Green*v. *United States*(8 Cust. Ct. 173, C. D. 599) the claim for free entry under paragraph 1750 was sustained.
Exhibit 32.1

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. Section 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of **FIRSTBINGO.COM INC.**(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Richard Wachter, Chief Financial 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:

- The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 

Dated this 18th day of May, 2006.

 
RICHARD WACHTER 
Richard Wachter 
Chief Financial Officer
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 AMTECH SYSTEMS, INC. AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES 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 Amtech Systems, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the
period ended September 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Jong S. Whang, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of the Company. By /s/ Jong S. Whang
Jong S. Whang
President and Chief Executive Officer
Date: January 28, 2008
No. 55612.

#### Bahrein Petroleum Co., Ltd., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 155620-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference of our reports dated January 28, 2001 included in this Form 10-K into
the Company's previously filed Registration Statement File No. 33-31556, No.
33-69840, No. 33-56693, No. 333-34249, No. 333-47729, No. 333-62629, No.
333-76633, No. 333-76635, No. 333-80091 and No. 333-40734.






ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP


Houston, Texas
March 23, 2001




                                       53
No. 96-1218.

#### Lafayette Morehouse, Inc., et al. *v.*County of Contra Costa.

Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 17 (Monday, January 27, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 3922]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-1975]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION


Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m., Wednesday, January 29, 1997.

PLACE: Board Room, 7th Floor, Room 7047, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, 
VA 22314-3428.

STATUS: Open.

BOARD BRIEFING:
    1. Insurance Fund Report.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:
    1. Approval of Minutes of Previous Open Meeting.
    2. Proposed Revision to the Operating Fee Scale.
    3. Chartering and Field of Membership Issues.
    4. Requests from Federal Credit Unions to Convert to a Community 
Charter.
    5. Request to Charter a Low-Income Community Federal Credit Union.
    6. Requests from Corporate Federal Credit Unions for Field of 
Membership Amendments.
    7. Final Rule: Amendments to part 704, NCUA's Rules and 
Regulations, Corporate Credit Unions.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Becky Baker, Secretary of the Board, 
Telephone (703) 518-6304.
Becky Baker,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 97-1975 Filed 1-22-97; 4:31 pm]
BILLING CODE 7535-01-M
# C_2015146EN.01000501.xml

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Jean-Bernard Lafonta v Autorité des marchés financiers

(Case C-628/13) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Directive 2003/6/EC - Article 1, point (1) - Directive 2003/124/EC - Article 1(1) - Inside information - Concept of ‘information of a precise nature’ - Potential effect in a particular direction on the prices of financial instruments))

(2015/C 146/06)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Jean-Bernard Lafonta

Appellant:

Respondent: Autorité des marchés financiers

Respondent:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

On a proper construction of point (1) of Article 1 of Directive 2003/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on insider dealing and market manipulation (market abuse) and Article 1(1) of Commission Directive 2003/124/EC of 22 December 2003 implementing Directive 2003/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the definition and public disclosure of inside information and the definition of market manipulation, in order for information to be regarded as being of a precise nature for the purposes of those provisions, it need not be possible to infer from that information, with a sufficient degree of probability, that, once it is made public, its potential effect on the prices of the financial instruments concerned will be in a particular direction.

---

(1)  OJ C 39, 8.2.2014.

1

---
No. 55658.

#### Wm. Filene’s Sons Co. *v.*United States,

protests 104026-K and 109665-K (Boston).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

The protests were dismissed.
Case Ho. 6,958.

#### HUTCHINSON et al. v. PEYTON et al.

[2 Cranch, C. C. 365.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Nov. Term, 1822.

Evidence — Parol—Partnership — Proof of Insurance.

1. If an agreement in writing be made bj-one of the partners of a mercantile firm, it is competent for the plaintiffs, in an action in the name of the members of the firm, to prove, by parol, that it wa.s made by that partner as the agent, and for the use and benefit of the firm.

2. The fact that insurance was made, cannot be proved without producing the policy, or showing it to be lost.

An agreement in writing, respecting the advance of bills on London to the amount of £4,000 sterling, and the consignment of a cargo of flour to John Traverse, one of the plaintiffs, in Lisbon, was made between the defendants and the said Traverse. In an action by the firm [Hutchinson, Traverse & Co.], their counsel offered parol evidence to prove that the agreement, although in the name of Tx-averse alone, was made by him as the agent and for the use and benefit of the firm.

*1089Mr. Swarm and Mr. Hewitt’, for defendants,

objected that it was not competent evidence, because it contradicts the written papers in which the name of the firm 'is not mentioned.

But THE COURT

(THRUSTON, Circuit Judge, absent)

overruled the objection and admitted the evidence.

The plaintiffs, to support a charge for the premium of insurance, gave in evidence the defendants’ orders to Traverse to cause insurance to be made, and the deposition of a witness stating positively that insurance was made by Baring & Co. in London; and the acknowledgment of Peyton, one of the defendants, that the premium was reasonable.

But THE COURT (THRUSTON, Circuit Judge, absent, and CRANCH, Chief Judge, doubting) said that it was necessary to produce the policy, or to show it to be lost

The plaintiffs became nonsuit with leave to move to reinstate the cause, on the ground of misdirection to the jury by the court. But it was not moved again.
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2131 

To reauthorize the Rivers of Steel National Heritage Area, the Lackawanna 

Valley National Heritage Area, and the Delaware and Lehigh National 

Heritage Corridor. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 27, 2012 

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

to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To reauthorize the Rivers of Steel National Heritage Area, 

the Lackawanna Valley National Heritage Area, and the 

Delaware and Lehigh National Heritage Corridor. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION OF NATIONAL HERITAGE 

4 AREAS AND CORRIDOR. 

5 (a) RIVERS OF STEEL NATIONAL HERITAGE

6 AREA.—Section 408 of the Steel Industry American Her7 itage Area Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–333; 110 Stat. 

8 4256) is amended by striking ‘‘September 30, 2012’’ and 

9 inserting ‘‘September 30, 2022’’. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2131 IS

1 (b) LACKAWANNA VALLEY NATIONAL HERITAGE

2 AREA.—Section 108 of the Lackawanna Valley National 

3 Heritage Area Act of 2000 (Public Law 106–278; 114 

4 Stat. 818) is amended by striking ‘‘September 30, 2012’’ 

5 and inserting ‘‘September 30, 2022’’. 

6 (c) DELAWARE AND LEHIGH NATIONAL HERITAGE

7 CORRIDOR.—Section 12 of the Delaware and Lehigh 

8 Navigation Canal National Heritage Corridor Act of 1988 

9 (Public Law 100–692; 102 Stat. 4558; 112 Stat. 3260; 

10 123 Stat. 1293) is amended— 

11 (1) in subsection (c)(1), by striking ‘‘2012’’ and 

12 inserting ‘‘2022’’; and 

13 (2) in subsection (d), by striking ‘‘the date that 

14 is 5 years after the date of enactment of this sub15 section’’ and inserting ‘‘September 30, 2022’’. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit 31.2**

Certification of CFO pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 302 and 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. 

I, David Genzler, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed thisannual report on Form 10-KSB of Non-Invasive Monitoring Systems, Inc.; 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. The Registrant’s othercertifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the Issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

(b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under oursupervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles; 

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Issuer’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the Issuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrant’s annual report for the year ended July 31, 2006 that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the Issuer’s internal control over financial reporting. 

5. The Registrant’s other certifying officer(s)and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrant’s auditor and the audit committee of the Registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): 

(a) All deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

Dated: November 13, 2006
# C_2014421EN.01000701.xml

| 24.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 421/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 421/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 17 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Förvaltningsrätten i Stockholm — Sweden) — Skandia America Corporation (USA), filial Sverige v Skatteverket

(Case C-7/13) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - VAT group - Internal invoicing for services supplied by a main company with its seat in a third country to its branch belonging to a VAT group within a Member State - Whether services supplied are taxable))

2014/C 421/09

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Referring court

Förvaltningsrätten i Stockholm

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Skandia America Corporation (USA), filial Sverige

Applicant:

Defendant: Skatteverket

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Articles 2(1), 9 and 11 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that supplies of services from a main establishment in a third country to its branch in a Member State constitute taxable transactions when the branch belongs to a group of persons whom it is possible to regard as a single taxable person for value added tax purposes; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Articles 2(1), 9 and 11 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that supplies of services from a main establishment in a third country to its branch in a Member State constitute taxable transactions when the branch belongs to a group of persons whom it is possible to regard as a single taxable person for value added tax purposes;

| 2. | Articles 56, 193 and 196 of Directive 2006/112/EC must be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation such as that in the main proceedings where the main establishment of a company in a third country supplies services for consideration to a branch of that company in a Member State and where the branch belongs to a group of persons whom it is possible to regard as a single taxable person for value added tax purposes in that Member State, that group, as the purchaser of those services, becomes liable for the value added tax payable. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Articles 56, 193 and 196 of Directive 2006/112/EC must be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation such as that in the main proceedings where the main establishment of a company in a third country supplies services for consideration to a branch of that company in a Member State and where the branch belongs to a group of persons whom it is possible to regard as a single taxable person for value added tax purposes in that Member State, that group, as the purchaser of those services, becomes liable for the value added tax payable.

---

(1)  OJ C 55, 23.2.2013.

1

---
No. 45365.

#### Protest 45141-K of Banfi Products Corp. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

On the record presented the protest was overruled.
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1927 

To modify the criteria used by the Corps of Engineers to dredge small 

ports. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 30, 2011 

Mr. PAUL (for himself and Mr. GRAHAM) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public 

Works 

A BILL 

To modify the criteria used by the Corps of Engineers to 

dredge small ports. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. MODIFICATION OF CORPS OF ENGINEERS CRI4 TERIA TO DREDGE SMALL PORTS. 

5 (a) MINIMUM TONNAGE REQUIREMENT.—Notwith6 standing any other provision of law (including regula7 tions), effective beginning on the date of enactment of this 

8 Act, the tonnage requirement with respect to the consider9 ation of dredging of small ports by the Corps of Engineers 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1927 IS

1 shall be a minimum of 500,000 tons, as calculated in ac2 cordance with subsection (b). 

3 (b) CALCULATION.—For purposes of subsection (a) 

4 and any other activity of the Corps of Engineers carried 

5 out on or after the date of enactment of this Act, tonnage 

6 shall be calculated by each relevant port authority and 

7 submitted to the Corps of Engineers. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS