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

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                       1,048,802
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  984,318
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,682,752
<PP&E>                                         269,917
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,773,905
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,504,615
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    345,000
<COMMON>                                       174,993
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,783,765
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,773,905
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,114,779
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,372,328
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                97,386
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             1,481,889
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                645,065
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (836,824)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.05)


</TABLE>
# C_2014112EN.01001202.xml

| 14.4.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Cartier parfums — lunettes SAS, Axa Corporate Solutions assurances SA v Ziegler France SA, Montgomery Transports SARL, Inko Trade s.r.o., Jaroslav Matěja, Groupama Transport

(Case C-1/13) (1)

1

((Request for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 27(2) - Lis pendens - Article 24 - Prorogation of jurisdiction - Establishment of jurisdiction of the court first seised by reason of appearance being entered without objection by the parties or the adoption of a final judgment))

2014/C 112/14

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Cartier parfums — lunettes SAS, Axa Corporate Solutions assurances SA

Applicants:

Defendants: Ziegler France SA, Montgomery Transports SARL, Inko Trade s.r.o., Jaroslav Matěja, Groupama Transport

Defendants:

Re:

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Cour de cassation (France) — Interpretation of Article 27(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001, L 12, p. 1) — Lis pendens — Establishment of the jurisdiction of the court first seised because neither party has claimed that it lacks jurisdiction or because it has adopted a decision which is irrevocable for any reason whatsoever.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 27(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that, except in the situation where the court second seised has exclusive jurisdiction by virtue of that regulation, the jurisdiction of the court first seised must be regarded as being established, within the meaning of that provision, if that court has not declined jurisdiction of its own motion and none of the parties has contested its jurisdiction prior to or up to the time at which a position is adopted which is regarded in national procedural law as being the first defence on the substance submitted before that court.

---

(1)  OJ C 63, 2.3.2013.

1

---
SERVED: JUNE 1, 2011 

. -•' DT' ''l"['T C -

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION "^:^^dRtATiOM 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS '. ; i'0'PERATK:NS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

;o3 

IN THE MATTER OF 

EMPIRE FLIGHT ACADEMY 

FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS NO. FAA-2011-0290 

ORDER OF CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE 

ESTABLISHING PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE 

On May 4 and 5, 2011, proposed procedural schedules were filed by, respectively. Regional Counsel, Eastern Region, FAA ("Complainant"), and Empire Flight Academy ("Respondent"). 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED THAT— 

1. The proposed dates in Respondent's Proposed Procedural Schedule, except proposed time limits for objections and responses to discovery, which are specified in the regulation, 

14 C.F.R. § 13.220 (2010), are adopted for these proceedings; and 

2. The time, date, and place of hearing will be set by a later order. 

SO ORDERED. 

Ronnie A. 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment - Service List 
'(."Si.. . '.O T 5 -

Federal Aviation AdmiQistration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, A' 

Wilbur Wright BuildingONE COPY (VIA FIRST-CL 

Gregory S. Winton, Respondent's Connse^ 

The Aviation Law Firm 

One Research Court, Suite 450 

kockville MD 20850 

rEL: 301-^94-8550 

|?AX: 301-294-2525 

Zachary M. Herman, Complainant's Counsel 'fl'[ f^' 

Office of the Regional Counsel, AEA-7 -

Eastern Region V ',. 

Federal Aviation Administration . . ' > 

1 Aviation Plaza, Room 561 

Jamaica^ l«*3r 11434 

"EEL: 718-553-3258 

I^AX: 718-995-5699 

FDMS Nb.fA|k-3011-P290 

(Civil Peiiaj^^Jtion) 

(URTESY G(^lp f tAX) 

TTie Honorable Ronnie A. Voder, 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

C^ice of Hearings, M-20, Room E12-320 

I4OO New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Wiashington, DC 20590 

T|L: 202-366-2142 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

!l[||j:?\%ft f 

J 'is * Pr 

Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person 

A>^tion Adi]aii9istration, 600 Independence Avenue, 

DC|20591;Atteition: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC*4: 

• ;; • Mn 

'^"»;»»\«i'^ i ' . • 

- T !.*• 

. -' -',J. 1 :• !• n ' 

* yL . t - - •• ••• ' 

r r 

•df-^my- •' 

'I ."i'*if^' *- jS 

use die follQWiQ|4 

tog-Suite 2wJ 

;,-^^S^<4^*^'-»'
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
                           PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

I, Michael Christmas, Chief Financial Officer (principal financial officer) of
Hugo International Telecom Inc.. (the "Registrant"), certifies that to the best
of my knowledge, based upon a review of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for
the period ended September 30, 2002 of the Registrant (the "Report"):

     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

     (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Registrant.




      /s/ Michael Christmas
----------------------------------------
Name:  Michael Christmas
Date: November 19, 2002
#### Lawrence Boccardi et al., Appellants, v Horn Construction Corp. et al., Respondents.

[612 NYS2d 180]

—In an action, *inter alia,*for specific performance and to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Lefkowitz, J.), dated September 14, 1992, which denied their motion for summary judgment (1) on their first and second causes of action and (2) on the issue of liability with respect to the third and fourth causes of action.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the plaintiffs are granted summary judgment on their first and second causes of action, and on the issue of liability on their third and fourth causes of action, the first, third, and fourth affirmative defenses are dismissed, the third and fourth causes of action to recover damages for breach of contract are severed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Rockland County, for entry of an appropriate judgment.

The meaning of paragraph 14 of the rider to the parties’ contract of sale is clear and unambiguous. It contains an unconditional obligation to build the road shown on the subdivision plan which was subsequently approved by the Town of Clarkstown. The failure to build the road constituted a breach of contract entitling the plaintiffs to specific performance. The performance agreement with the Town was not a substitute for the defendants’ obligation, but merely provided security for the work to be performed *(see, Town of Chester v Republic Ins. Co.,*89 AD2d 959).

The Town is not a necessary party, as it will not be "inequitably affected by a judgment” in this action (CPLR 1001 [a]). The Town approved the subdivision plan which included the proposed road reflected on the map filed with the County Clerk *(see,*Town Law § 278, redesignated § 279, eff July 1, 1993). Therefore, the first affirmative defense should be dismissed.

The contract of sale was signed by the individual defendant *503Stuart Horn, and there is no evidence that the contract was assigned, or that there was a novation. In accordance with paragraph 14, the road was to be built after the closing. Consequently, the obligation survived the closing and Horn remains personally liable.

The defense of impossibility of performance is without merit. That the construction of the road may be more difficult or costly than anticipated does not excuse the defendants’ performance *(see, Kel Kim Corp. v Central Mkts.,*70 NY2d 900). Accordingly, the third affirmative defense should be dismissed.

There is no merit to the defendants’ fourth affirmative defense, and the remaining second and fifth affirmative defenses relate to the issue of whatever damages should be awarded, for which the plaintiffs do not seek summary judgment. They do not constitute defenses to the first or second cause of action, nor are they relevant to whether the defendants breached the contract. Lawrence, J. P., Copertino, Altman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 3.4a

                          AMENDMENT NO. 1
                                TO
                    AMENDED AND RESTATED BYLAWS
                                OF
                    MAXICARE HEALTH PLANS, INC.


       The Amended and  Restated  Bylaws  of Maxicare Health Plans,
Inc. (the "Corporation") dated January  28, 1994 are hereby amended
as follows:

       1.       Article  III,  Section  2.    NUMBER  OF DIRECTORS.
Article III, Section 2 shall be  amended to delete the remainder of
the second sentence after "directors" on the fourth line and insert
in lieu thereof:

                "or by the affirmative vote of the holders
                of not less than eighty percent (80%) of
                the outstanding shares entitled to vote
                thereon."


       2.       Article IX, Section  1.  AMENDMENT BY STOCKHOLDERS.
Article IX, Section 1 shall be  amended to delete commencing on the
fifth line thereof:

                "Section 3 of Article II and Sections 1 and
                2 of Article IX"

and insert in lieu thereof:

                "Sections 3 and 14 of Article II, Section 2 of
                Article III and Sections 1 and 2 of Article IX"

       3.       The aforementioned  amendments  to  the  Bylaws set
forth in Items 1 and 2  above  shall  terminate and no longer be of
any force or effect unless they have been approved by a majority of
the outstanding shares of the  Corporation entitled to vote thereon
on or  before  the  adjournment  of  the  Corporation's 1999 Annual
Meeting  of  Stockholders.     In   the  event  the  aforementioned
amendments have not been approved by the stockholders and therefore
terminate; the affected Bylaws shall  revert back to those existing
on the date hereof  before  such  amendments, unless they have been
expressly otherwise amended subsequent to the date hereof.

       4.       Except as expressly set  forth herein the Bylaws of
the Corporation as Amended  and  Restated  through January 28, 1994
shall remain in full force and effect.


       Dated March 28, 1998
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-28-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-28-1996
<CASH>                                             469
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   66,730
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,005
<INVENTORY>                                     84,484
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               157,451
<PP&E>                                          74,729
<DEPRECIATION>                                  78,565
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 313,595
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           59,535
<BONDS>                                        125,859
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,316
<OTHER-SE>                                     120,760
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   313,595
<SALES>                                        497,457
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               497,457
<CGS>                                          411,697
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  411,697
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                90,262
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 3,308
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,069
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,502)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (2,032)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,470)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,470)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.32)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.32)
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 10.10


                     EMPLOYMENT TERMINATION AND AGREEMENT



      CompuTrac, Inc.  has  elected,  by these  presents,  to  terminate  the
 employment agreement  between CompuTrac,  Inc. (CT)  and Harry  W.  Margolis
 (HWM)  dated January  1, 1998.  Termination is being  exercised pursuant  to
 Item 4(i) of said agreement.

      Said agreement is hereby terminated effective at the close of  business
 on January 31, 2001.  HWM and CT do hereby agree that the demand  promissory
 note in the amount  of $817,659.00, being  executed by CT  contemporaneously
 with the execution of  this agreement, shall  constitute full settlement  of
 any and all termination payments required under said agreement.  HWM and  CT
 further agree and acknowledge that other than accrued and unpaid salary  for
 the month of January 2001, no further monies  are due or owing to HWM  under
 the agreement being terminated.

      Neither the  Agreement  &  Conditional Collateral  Assignment  nor  the
 Monthly Employment Agreement  effective February  1, 2001,  are affected  by
 this termination.


      Dated this ____ day of January, 2001.



 Executive:                    CompuTrac, Inc.


 ___________________________   By:_______________________________
 Harry W. Margolis                  George P. Pardue
                               Its: Chief Financial Officer
Amendment to the Fortune Brands, Inc. 2003 Long-Term Incentive Plan



 Exhibit 10.9 
 FORTUNE BRANDS, INC. 
 2003 LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN 
 Amendment 
 1. Section 4
of the Plan is amended by adding the following sentence at the end thereof: 
 “No Awards shall be granted under this Plan on or after
the date the Company’s stockholders approve the Fortune Brands, Inc. 2007 Long-Term Incentive Plan.” 
 2. Section 10(c) of
the Plan is amended by replacing the phrase, “after December 31, 2008,” in the first sentence thereof with the phrase, “on or after the date the Company’s stockholders approve the Fortune Brands, Inc. 2007 Long-Term
Incentive Plan.” 
 3. Section 12(a) of the Plan is amended by replacing the first sentence with the following: 
 “In the event of any merger, consolidation, stock or other non-cash dividend, extraordinary cash dividend, split-up, spin-off, combination or
exchange of shares, reorganization or recapitalization or change in capitalization, or any other similar corporate event, the Committee may make such adjustments in (i) the aggregate number of shares subject to the Plan and the number of shares
that may be made subject to Awards to any individual Participant as set forth in Sections 7(a) and 
10(a) as well as the aggregate number of shares that may be made subject to any type of Award, (ii) the number and kind of shares that
are subject to any Option (including any Option outstanding after termination of employment) and the Option price per share without any change in the aggregate Option price to be paid therefor upon exercise of the Option, (iii) the number and
kind of Rights granted or that may be granted under the Plan, (iv) the number and kind of shares of outstanding Restricted Stock, (v) the number and kind of shares of Common Stock covered by a Performance Award or Other Stock-Based Award
and (vi) the number of outstanding dividend equivalents, as the Committee shall deem appropriate in the circumstances; provided that, the Committee shall make such adjustments in the event of an equity restructuring (as defined in Statement of
Financial Accounting Standards No. 123 (revised)) as are necessary to prevent the dilution in value of a Participant’s Award.” 
  

					
		 	FORTUNE BRANDS, INC.
			
	Date: September 25, 2007	 		 	
			
		 	By:	 	 /s/ Mark A. Roche

		 	Its:	 	Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       6,465,685
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,373,361
<ALLOWANCES>                                   307,056
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            17,634,301
<PP&E>                                       7,189,044
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,489,283
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              32,977,030
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       11,100,452
<BONDS>                                        453,788
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          180,082
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  21,242,708
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                21,422,790
<SALES>                                      5,154,256
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            36,545,109
<CGS>                                        5,321,053
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               36,233,155
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              51,661
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,042,958
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,042,958
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,042,958
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.06
        

</TABLE>
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





Section
1350 Certification





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Comstock Mining, Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Corrado
De Gasperis, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted by § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that,
based on my knowledge:





(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.





Date:  August
5, 2010





/s/ Corrado De GasperisCorrado
      De GasperisChief
      Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial
      Officer)





The
foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as an exhibit to the Report and is
not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure
document.
#### Kenneth R. COMPTON v. Ivy Marie BERTAUT.

No. 60219.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

July 11, 1977.

*79In re: Kenneth R. Compton applying for writs of certiorari, mandamus and prohibítion

ORDER

This case is transferred to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal for appropriate action. Article 5, § 5(D) of the 1974 Constitution giving the *defendant*a right of direct appeal to the Supreme Court when *imprisonment exceeding six months has been imposed*refers only to criminal cases, that is, misdemeanor convictions. The present matter is a contempt adjudication in a civil matrimonial action. Hence, the Court of Appeal has supervisory jurisdiction.
No. 47782.

#### Protest 20437-K of New York Merchandise Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of Abstract 43372 the tape measures in question were held dutiable" as household utensils at 40 percent under paragraph 339. Brass base shells stipulated to be similar to those the subject of *New York Merchandise Co.*v. *United States*(8 Cust. Ct. 209, C. D. 607) were held dutiable at 35 percent under paragraph 353 as parts of articles having as an essential feature an electrical element or device, such as signs.
EXHIBIT 32.a

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quartly Report of Pan American Energy Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended May 31, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Korina
Houghton, in my capacity as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material
    respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





|Date: July 19, 2004 | /s/ Korina Houghton
    Korina Houghton, Chief Financial Officer
|------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------