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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE JOHNSTON
INDUSTRIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF SEPTEMBER 27, 1997
AND FOR THE NINE MONTHS THEN ENDED AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-27-1997
<CASH>                                       5,798,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               43,738,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,958,000
<INVENTORY>                                 59,942,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           113,384,000
<PP&E>                                     236,698,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             117,982,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             249,351,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       44,472,000
<BONDS>                                    137,104,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      3,000
<COMMON>                                     1,246,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  49,812,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               249,351,000
<SALES>                                    252,990,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           252,990,000
<CGS>                                      209,856,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              209,856,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            23,982,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               512,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          10,131,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (11,699,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                (3,325,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (8,734,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 126,000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (8,248,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.79)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
House Calendar No. 17

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 130

[Report No. 103–34]

RESOLUTION

Providing for the consideration of the bill (H.R.

30, 1993, and for other purposes.priations for the fiscal year ending September1335) making emergency supplemental approMARCH 16, 1993

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
IV

House Calendar No. 17

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 130

[Report No. 103–34]

Providing for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 1335) making emergency

supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30,

1993, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 16, 1993

Mr. DERRICK, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution;

which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

RESOLUTION

Providing for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 1335) making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal

year ending September 30, 1993, and for other purposes.

1 Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this

2 resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of

3 rule XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee

4 of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consider5 ation of the bill (H.R. 1335) making emergency supple6 mental appropriations for the fiscal year ending Septem7 ber 30, 1993, and for other purposes. The first reading
2

HRES 130 RH

1 of the bill shall be dispensed with. Points of order against

2 consideration of the bill for failure to comply with clause

3 2(l)(6) of rule XI or clause 7 of rule XXI are waived. Gen4 eral debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not ex5 ceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair6 man and ranking minority member of the Committee on

7 Appropriations. After general debate the Committee of the

8 Whole shall rise without motion. No further consideration

9 of the bill shall be in order except pursuant to a subse10 quent order of the House.
#### Audrey E. PHILLIPS, Appellant, v. Marvin Holley PHILLIPS, Appellee.

No. 70-249.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 26, 1970.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Brevard County; Roger F. Dykes, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
# C_2020209EN.01003801.xml

| 22.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 209/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/38

---

Action brought on 5 May 2020 — Stada Arzneimittel v EUIPO — Pfizer (RUXYMLA)

(Case T-248/20)

(2020/C 209/49)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Stada Arzneimittel AG (Bad Vilbel, Germany) (represented by: J.-C. Plate and R. Kaase, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Pfizer Inc. (New York, New York, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark RUXYMLA — Application for registration No 17 865 739

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 February 2020 in Case R 1878/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs of the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs of the appeal proceedings.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
# C_2005195EN.01S00301.xml

| 10.8.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 195/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 195/s3

---

NOTICE

NOTICE

On 11 August 2005, in Official Journal of the European Union C 196 A, the ‘Common catalogue of agricultural plant species — Fifth supplement to the 23rd complete edition’ will be published.

Official Journal of the European Union

Subscribers to the Official Journal may obtain the same number of copies and language versions of this Official Journal as those to which they subscribe free of charge. They are requested to return the attached order form, duly completed and bearing their subscription registration number (code appearing on the left of each label and beginning with: O/.........). This Official Journal will remain available free of charge for one year from the date of its publication.

Non-subscribers can order this Official Journal against payment from one of our sales offices (see overleaf).

This Official Journal — like all Official Journals (L, C, CA, CE) — can be consulted free of charge online at http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex.

Image

---
#### Terry Douglas RICHMOND and Ted Richmond, Petitioners, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 43957.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 28, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 29, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 277 So.2d 857.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Clarent Energy Services, Inc. and Graham Gilliam v. Leasing
Ventures, LLC

Appellate case number: 01

- 18

- 00036

- CV

Trial court case number: 2016

- 50734

Trial court: 127th District Court of Harris County

Appellants are appealing from the trial court’s December 14, 2017 summary judgment order, as well as two other orders. The court ordered the parties to mediation, but appellee has filed an objection, claiming that th e trial court has not yet signed a final judgment.

The December 14, 2017 summary judgment order contains language indicating that it was not a final judgment. Appellants assert in the ir notice of appeal that the December 14 order, together with the denial of their motion for summary judgment, and a previous partial summary judgment comprise a final judgment, but finality is not evident from our review of the orders

. If there is no final judgment, this court does not have jurisdiction to entertain this appe al. See Jack B. Anglin Co. v. Tipps , 842 S.W.2d 266, 272 (Tex. 1992) (appeal may be had only from final judgments unless statute authorizes appeal of interlocutory order).

Accordingly the order of February 7, 2018, referring the parties to mediation , is

wi thdrawn

.
The c ourt may dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(a). Unless appellant causes a supplemental clerk’s record to be filed containing a final judgment

, or it otherwise files a response demonstrating that this c ourt has jurisdiction of the appeal, this appeal will be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.3(a), 43.2(f). Appellant’s response, if any, is due in this c ourt within 10 days of the date of this notice

.
It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Michael Massengale

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: February 21, 2018
Exhibit
32.2
  Section
1350 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
  I, Debra
A. DiMaria, Chief Financial Officer and Corporate Secretary of Proginet
Corporation (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:
  1.
              The
      Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the year ended July 31,
      2008 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
      or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));
      and
 
 2.
              The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.
 
 
 Date:
October 2, 2008
 
 /s/Debra A.
      DiMariaDebra
      A. DiMariaChief
      Financial Officer and Corporate
Secretary
  
 This
certification is being furnished as required by Rule 13a-14(b) under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Section 1350 of Chapter
63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, and shall not be deemed “filed” for
purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act or otherwise subject of the liability
of that Section.  This certification shall not be deemed to be
incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or
the Exchange Act except as otherwise stated in such filing.  A signed
original of the written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Proginet Corporation and will be retained by Proginet Corporation and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
Exhibit 13.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Pearson plc (the Company) for the fiscal year ending
December 31, 2015 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John Fallon, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify to my knowledge, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), 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 Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: March 23, 2016



/s/ John FallonJohn FallonChief Executive Officer
#### Winfred Thomas LOYD, a/k/a Thomas Winfred Lloyd, Appellant, v. Malcolm E. BEARD, Sheriff, Appellee.

No. 72-649.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 7, 1973.

Appeal dismissed.
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Avatar Holdings Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material 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 financial condition, results of operations
and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer 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)) and
internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and
15d-15(f)) 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, to ensure that material information relating to
the registrant, 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 our supervision, 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 registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness 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 registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth
fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably
likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
  (a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal
control over financial reporting which are reasonably 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.
 Date: November 9, 2010
    /s/  Gerald D. KelferGerald D. KelferPresident and Chief Executive Officer
[No. 407-3.

Division Three.

February 16, 1972.]

#### Anthony F. Aichlmayr, *Appellant,*v. Patrick S. Lynch, M.D., *Respondent.*

*William P. Wimberley*(of *Richter, Wimberley ■& Eric*son), for appellant.

*John G. Layman,*for respondent.

Munson, C.J.

Plaintiff appeals from a favorable judgment, against defendant in his sole and separate capacity, seeking to include therein defendant’s interest in his marital community property.

*435Plaintiff brought suit against defendant for alienation of affection and criminal conversation based on defendant’s conduct with plaintiff’s former wife. The jury found for plaintiff on both claims. During trial plaintiff moved to amend his complaint to include defendant’s wife and the marital community as codefendants. The trial court reserved its ruling until entry of the verdict. It then denied plaintiff’s motion. We affirm.

Tortious conduct by the husband, committed in the management of, or for the benefit of, the marital community, renders the community liable under a theory of respondeat superior, and not because of the fact of the tort-feasor’s marital relationship with his spouse. *Smith v. Retallick,*48 Wn.2d 360, 293 P.2d 745 (1956); *LaFramboise v. Schmidt,*42 Wn.2d 198, 254 P.2d 485 (1953); *McHenry v. Short,*29 Wn.2d 263, 186 P.2d 900 (1947); *Bergman v. State,*187 Wash. 622, 60 P.2d 699, 106 A.L.R. 1007 (1936); *Benson v. Bush,*3 Wn. App. 777, 477 P.2d 929 (1970). The claims of alienation of affection of another man’s wife, or the commission of criminal conversation with her, bear no relation to the tort-feasor’s bona fide management of community property or to any benefit of the *community.*See *DePhillips v. Neslin,*139 Wash. 51, 245 P. 749 (1926).

Appreciating the tenuousness of the benefit-management theory in the instant case, plaintiff invites us to modify our community property law so that defendant’s interest in community property may be reached to satisfy the separate judgment against him. (See *McDonald v. Senn,*53 N.M. 198, 204 P.2d 990 (1949); *United States v. Overman,*424 F.2d 1142 (9th Cir. 1970); 13 Wayne L. Rev. 706, 720 (1967).) We decline the invitation. The change plaintiff desires is more properly a legislative matter.

Judgment affirmed.

Evans, J., concurs.

Green, J.

(concurring) — I concur in the result since it is consistent with the existing law of this state. However, I *436have difficulty justifying law that creates a cause of action for alienation of affections and criminal conversation but at the same time denies a successful plaintiff the fruits of that action. Either the plaintiff should be afforded a remedy whereby he may collect the fruits of his action or the causes of action should be abolished as has occurred in some states. W. Prosser, Torts § 124 (4th ed. 1971), *Statutory Abolition of Actions*at page 887 and cases cited therein. This is an area for legislative consideration.

Petition for rehearing denied March 13, 1972.

Review denied by Supreme Court April 24, 1972.
# Official Journal C 53/3 Ma

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 53 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 483 March 2005 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 53

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 483 March 2005

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Information |
| | Council |
| 2005/C 053/1 | The Hague Programme: strengthening freedom, security and justice in the European Union | 1 |
| 2005/C 053/2 | Council Decision of 17 February 2005 renewing the term of office of the President of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) | 15 |
| | Commission |
| 2005/C 053/3 | Euro exchange rates | 16 |
| 2005/C 053/4 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.3702 — CVC/CSM) (1) | 17 |
| 2005/C 053/5 | State aid — Germany — State aid No C 40/2004 (ex N 42/2004) — ‘Real Estate Transfer Tax Exemption for Housing Companies in the Neue Länder’. — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty (1) | 18 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Information

Council

2005/C 053/1

The Hague Programme: strengthening freedom, security and justice in the European Union

1

2005/C 053/2

Council Decision of 17 February 2005 renewing the term of office of the President of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs)

15

Commission

2005/C 053/3

Euro exchange rates

16

2005/C 053/4

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.3702 — CVC/CSM) (1)

17

2005/C 053/5

State aid — Germany — State aid No C 40/2004 (ex N 42/2004) — ‘Real Estate Transfer Tax Exemption for Housing Companies in the Neue Länder’. — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty (1)

Neue Länder

18

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
#### Joseph Rosenblum et al., Doing Business as Nineteen Building Co., Landlords, Appellants, *v.*Abraham H. Lanes, Tenant, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department,

December 4, 1952.

*411
      *Victor WMtehorn*and *Joseph Delman*for appellants.

*Abraham H. Lanes,*respondent in person.

*Per Curiam.*

Admittedly the squatter erected and maintained the television antenna without landlord’s permission or consent. This constituted an intrusion or squatting within the purview of subdivision 4 of section 1411 of the Civil Practice Act. *(Maple Lane Apts.*v. *Berson,*N. Y. L. J., Jan 11, 1952, p. 150, col. 4; *Maiorana*v. *Dubnick,*N. Y. L. J., March 14,1952, p. 1042, col. 6; *Thatford Stone Corp.*v. *Sassano,*N. Y. L. J., June 27, 1952, p. 2521, col. 2; *Swill*v. *Kerne,*N. Y. L. J., Oct. 15, 1951, p. 842, col. *4; Mackin Realty Corp.*v. *Matfus,*113 N. Y. S. 2d 61.)

The final order should be unanimously reversed upon the law, with $30 costs to the landlord, and final order directed in favor of the landlord as prayed for in the petition.

Feeeelly, Coldee" and Walsh, JJ., concur.

Final order reversed, etc.