alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
G-Invoicing Update

GPO Financial Documents Repository

November 8, 2023

Robin Bilger, Don Bartolomei, Joann Sharp
G-Invoicing (GINV) Readiness for FY24

 GPO has begun working with our initial pilot agencies on General Terms and Conditions 

(GT&Cs) and Advanced Orders. We anticipate expanded support for all other GPO customers 

in early calendar year 2024.

 GPO is in the process of developing our 7600EZ solution for GPO Print/Publishing Services. 

Release date to be determined. 

 As Fiscal Service moves towards retiring IPAC processes, all legacy IPAC billings must be 

complete by September 30, 2025, or will be considered In-Flight Orders.

 GPO G-Invoicing webpage: https://www.gpo.gov/how-to-work-with-us/agency/g-invoicing
GPO Financial Documents Repository (FDR)

 GPO is pleased to announce the release of our enhanced GPO FDR application

 https://financialdocuments.gpo.gov/
GPO Financial Documents Repository (FDR)

What’s new?

 Support for two types of Deposit Accounts: Legacy and G-Invoicing

 Allows customers to use their current Deposit Account Billing Address Code (BAC) to 

establish a G-Invoicing Deposit Account

 Single sign-on using GPO’s Identity Management Service (GIMS)

Benefits of using 

 Smooth transition to G-Invoicing

 One single login for FDR and GPO Publish using GIMS

 Improved visibility and faster account reconciliation

 Ability to control and share access within your Agency

 Access SF-1s and Form 400 invoices, including historical content
GPO Financial Documents Repository (FDR)

 GPO will be hosting webinars in the coming months

 Please direct questions to FDRepository@gpo.gov
Questions or Concerns

Contact the GPO G-Invoicing Team

GINV@gpo.gov

https://www.gpo.gov/how-to-work-with-us/agency/g-invoicing
#### RANGER INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Charles K. McKNIGHT et al., Appellees.

No. 74-81.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 6, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
# C_2020201EN.01002901.xml

| 15.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 201/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 201/29

---

Action brought on 19 March 2020 — IZ v Parliament

(Case T-155/20)

(2020/C 201/40)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: IZ (represented by: T. Bontinck and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

Principally:

| — | annul the decision of 4 July 2019 dismissing the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 4 July 2019 dismissing the applicant;

| — | order the European Parliament to pay compensation in the sum of EUR 20 000 in respect of the non-material harm suffered; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay compensation in the sum of EUR 20 000 in respect of the non-material harm suffered;

| — | order the European Parliament to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay the costs;

In the alternative:

| — | find that the decision dissolving the political group ENF was unlawful; |
| --- | --- |

—

find that the decision dissolving the political group ENF was unlawful;

| — | accordingly, annul the decision of 4 July 2019 dismissing the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

accordingly, annul the decision of 4 July 2019 dismissing the applicant;

| — | order the European Parliament to pay compensation in the sum of EUR 20 000 in respect of the non-material harm suffered; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay compensation in the sum of EUR 20 000 in respect of the non-material harm suffered;

| — | order the European Parliament to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies, principally, on five pleas in law that are identical or similar to those relied upon in Case T-154/20, IY v Parliament.

In the alternative, the applicant pleads the unlawfulness of the decision dissolving the European political group ENF. The applicant argues that since the dissolution decision was unlawful, as it was vitiated by a manifest error of assessment and a misuse of powers, the dismissal decision — which was based exclusively on that dissolution — is itself, therefore, unlawful and must be annulled.

---
<PAGE>   1
GENOVESE DRUG STORES, INC.

Exhibit 11

STATEMENT RE:  COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER COMMON SHARE

(IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)




<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                       Sixteen Weeks Ended
                                      ---------------------
                                      May 23,       May 24,
                                       1997          1996
                                      -------       -------
<S>                                  <C>           <C>
Primary:

  Weighted average shares
   outstanding (A)                     12,340        12,215
  Equivalent shares--dilutive
   stock options--based on
   treasury stock method                  (B)           (B)
                                      -------       -------
                                       12,340        12,215
                                      -------       -------

Net income                            $ 1,829       $ 1,285
                                      -------       -------

Net income per common share (A)       $   .15       $   .11
                                      =======       =======
</TABLE>


(A) Adjusted, where appropriate, to reflect the effect of the 10 percent stock
dividend distributed on January 17, 1997.

(B) The effect of equivalent shares of dilutive stock options is not significant
to net income per common share.

There is no significant difference between primary and fully diluted net income
per common share.


                                       -9-
IV

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 524

Providing for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 3990) to provide protection

from sexual predators.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

AUGUST 17, 1994

Ms. DUNN (for herself, Mr. DEAL, Mr. HYDE, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Mr.

KYL, Mrs. FOWLER, Ms. MOLINARI, Mr. ZIMMER, Mr. CUNNINGHAM,

Mrs. ROUKEMA, Mr. SAXTON, Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey, Mr.

MANZULLO, and Mr. CRAPO) submitted the following resolution; which

was referred to the Committee on Rules

RESOLUTION

Providing for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 3990) to

provide protection from sexual predators.

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 the con5 sideration of the bill (H.R. 3990) to provide protection

6 from sexual predators, and the first reading of the bill

7 shall be dispensed with. After general debate which shall

8 be confined to the bill, and which shall not exceed two

9 hours, one hour to be equally divided and controlled by
2

HRES 524 IH

1 the chairman and ranking minority member of the Com2 mittee on the Judiciary, and one hour to be controlled by

3 Representative Dunn of Washington, the bill shall be con4 sidered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall

5 be in order to consider an amendment in the nature of

6 a substitute offered by Representative Dunn of Washing7 ton, or a designee, as an original bill for the purpose of

8 amendment under the five-minute rule, the amendment

9 shall be considered as read, and all points of order against

10 the amendment are waived. At the conclusion of the con11 sideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall

12 rise and report the bill to the House with such amend13 ments as may have been adopted, and any Member may

14 demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment

15 adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to

16 the amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous

17 question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and

18 amendments thereto to final passage without intervening

19 motion except one motion to recommit, with or without

20 instructions.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         220,502
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  412,170<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     69,924
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               861,201
<PP&E>                                         804,365
<DEPRECIATION>                                 345,242
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,051,610
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          354,726
<BONDS>                                      2,290,110
<COMMON>                                        90,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     16,318
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,090,092
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,051,610
<SALES>                                         38,406
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               534,250
<CGS>                                           25,246
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  330,700
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               147,398
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                37,547
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,862
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 16,743
<INCOME-TAX>                                    14,225
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,518
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,518
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .03
<FN>
<F1>AMOUNT SHOWN IS NET OF ALLOWANCES
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32


                   Certification Accompanying Periodic Report
            Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
                              (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350)

The undersigned, Christian Haub, Executive Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
of The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc. ("Company"), and Brenda M.
Galgano, Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer of our Company, each
hereby certifies that (1) the Quarterly Report of our Company on Form 10-Q for
the period ended December 5, 2009 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 the results of operations of our Company.




Dated:  January 12, 2010                           /s/ Christian Haub
                                                   ----------------------------
                                                   Christian Haub
                                                   Executive Chairman and
                                                   Chief Executive Officer




Dated:  January 12, 2010                           /s/ Brenda M. Galgano
                                                   ----------------------------
                                                   Brenda M. Galgano
                                                   Senior Vice President,
                                                   Chief Financial Officer


                                       70
#### Sam H. HEMPHILL; Bridget S. Giaimo, a widow; Ernest M. Young, Donald B. Young, Robert Yonovitz, and Kenneth Yonovitz, as Co-Executors of the Estate of Lillian Yonovitz; Herbert T. Gibson and Alice C. Gibson, his wife; Mary H. Gibson, a widow; T. D. Watkins; and Donald H. Stuart and Margery Stuart, his wife, Appellants, v. CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH, a municipal corporation of the State of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-296.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 21, 1970.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Palm Beach County; Joseph P. Metzger, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
[No. 797-1.

Division One—Panel 1.

July 12, 1971.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Larry Eugene Adams, *Appellant.*

*Maslan & Hanan*and *Robert G. Maslan,*for appellant (appointed counsel for appeal).

*Christopher T. Bayley, Prosecuting Attorney,*and *John R. Cuningham, Deputy,*for respondent.

Williams, J.

Appellant stands convicted of the crime of assault in the second degree. His sole assignment of error is that the following alibi instruction shifts the burden of proving his innocence to him in violation of the United States and State of Washington Constitutions:

> A defense interposed by the defendant in this case is an alibi; that is, that the defendant was at another place at the identical time the crime was committed, if committed at all.

> *367When the state *makes out*such a case as would sustain a verdict of guilty and the defendant offers evidence, the burden is upon such defendant to *make out*his defense as to an alibi, but it is not incumbent upon him to prove an alibi beyond a reasonable doubt. When the proof is all in, both that given by the state and for the defendant, then the primary question is, the whole of the evidence being considered, whether such defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The law is that if you have a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused, after having considered all the evidence, you should acquit; but if, after considering all the evidence, you do not have a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused, you should convict.

(Italics ours.)

This precise instruction was held not to violate the fifth and fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution and article 1, section 3 of the Washington State Constitution in *State v. Pam,*1 Wn. App. 723, 463 P.2d 200 (1969). The instruction does not place the burden of proof upon appellant but rather the burden of coming forward with evidence of an alibi. *State v. Green,*2 Wn. App. 57, 466 P.2d 193 (1970).

The instruction is confusing, however, because it seems to say that when the state “makes out” (sustains the burden of proof) then the burden is upon appellant to “make out” (sustain the burden of proving) his defense as to an alibi, thus apparently placing the burden of proof of the critical elements of time and place upon him. *State*v. *Turner,*3 Wn. App. 948, 478 P.2d 747 (1970).

However, if appellant had wished a clarifying instruction, it was his duty to ask for it, which he did not. *State v. Mayner,*4 Wn. App. 549, 483 P.2d 151 (1971).

Affirmed.

Horowitz, C. J., and Utter, J., concur.

Petition for rehearing denied October 20,1971.

Review granted by Supreme Court December 28,1971.
#### McDaniel *v.*Hanauer, *et al.*

The statement in the record, that the jury was duly elected, impaneled and sworn to try the issue, is, substantially, that they were sworn according to law.

*Appeal from Laiorence Circuit Court.*

lion. L. L. Mack, Circuit Judge.

Watkins & Nose, for appellant.

G arland & Nash, for appellees.

Compton, J.

This case is submitted to the consideration of the court on the single question as to whether the jury were well sworn.

The record states that the jury “ was duly elected, impaneled, and sworn to try the Issue joined in this case.” This was sufficient. The word “ duly,” which means properly, regularly, indicates the manner of the swearing; and the additional words “to try the issue joined in this case,” merely indicate 'The purpose for which the oath was administered, the meaning of all which is, substantially, that the jury was sworn according to law.

Judgment affirmed.
259 La. 756

#### Succession of Mrs. Alice BONING, Widow of Joseph P. HENICAN.

No. 51584.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 28, 1971.

In re: National American Bank of New Orleans applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 248 So.2d 385.

Writ refused. There is no error of law in' the judgment.
P. 1


# RCRA Box 1883 Prepped byOllie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 42 ) ll-B-20 3 Docket Number: 

# A-90-1 9

Printed 12/3/200810:42:12 AM

Sheet 42 of 171

# A-90-1 9 ll-B-20 3 P. 2



# PENDIN GCONFIDENTIAL 

# jHJJJJ T yi9 a 

# I9

EPAAI R DOCKE T Th e followin g informatio ni s locate d i nth e confidentia l file s o f th e Director , Emissio n Standard s Division , Offic e o f Ai r Qualit yPlannin g and Standards , U . S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Researc hTriangl e Park , Nort hCarolin a 27711 . Thi s informatio n i s confidentia l pendin g fina l determinatio nb yth e Administrato r and i s no t availabl e fo r publi c inspection . W . Floyd , Radia n Corporation , t o Proces s Vent s Docke t A-90-19 , Decembe r 1991 , HONNESHAP : Industr y Characteristics/Xylenol . 2 3 pages . CB I Documen t Contro l No . 86/23 , PPS-20 3
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-14-0000062

13-MAY-2014

09:30 AM
# C_2020313EN.01003201.xml

| 21.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 313/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/32

---

Action brought on 23 July 2020 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Ou (-Vpro)

(Case T-491/20)

(2020/C 313/46)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Kuei-Chin Ou (Taipei, Taiwan)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for the EU figurative mark –Vpro — Application for registration No 17 741 133

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 April 2020 in Case R 1758/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision, in so far as, by dismissing the appeal brought by the opponent, it upholds the decision of the Opposition Division in opposition proceedings B 3 055 001, granting EU trade mark No 17 741 133 -Vpro (figurative), to distinguish goods in Classes 24 and 25; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision, in so far as, by dismissing the appeal brought by the opponent, it upholds the decision of the Opposition Division in opposition proceedings B 3 055 001, granting EU trade mark No 17 741 133 -Vpro (figurative), to distinguish goods in Classes 24 and 25;

| — | order any party or parties opposing this action to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order any party or parties opposing this action to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

---
#### Jose A. Fuentes, Appellant, v City of New York, Defendant, and New York City Housing Authority, Respondent.

[654 NYS2d 367]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Tolub, J.), entered on or about December 27, 1995, which granted defendant-respondent’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claims against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff’s claim that defendant’s practice of transporting a dumpster over the sidewalk either created the crack in the sidewalk that caused his fall or constituted a special use of the sidewalk was controverted by defendant’s grounds supervisor, who testified at deposition that he observed the defect in the sidewalk three or four years before the incident but that defendant had been moving the dumpster for only about one year before, and that defendant’s loader did not drive over the portion of the sidewalk where plaintiff fell. The motion court properly gave this testimony conclusive effect in the absence of any offer by plaintiff of evidentiary proof in admissible form to *104the contrary *(see, Belmonte v City of New York,*180 AD2d 617; *Noto v Mermaid Rest.,*156 AD2d 435). Nor can defendant be liable for plaintiff’s injuries caused by the icy conditions since the storm was still in progress at the time plaintiff fell *(see, Newsome v Cservak,*130 AD2d 637). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                         5
<MULTIPLIER>                      1,000

<S>
                                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                              APR-29-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                                   JAN-29-2000
<CASH>                                                               5,850
<SECURITIES>                                                         7,834
<RECEIVABLES>                                                        4,312
<ALLOWANCES>                                                           235
<INVENTORY>                                                          9,645
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                    27,636
<PP&E>                                                              17,585
<DEPRECIATION>                                                       5,388
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                     112,144
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                                6,248
<BONDS>                                                                  0
<COMMON>                                                               858
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                                              0
<OTHER-SE>                                                          85,624
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                       112,144
<SALES>                                                             35,539
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                    35,539
<CGS>                                                               28,464
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                       28,464
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                     5,091
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                     438
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                      2,123
<INCOME-TAX>                                                           977
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                  1,146
<DISCONTINUED>                                                      (1,790)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                                          (644)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                          (0.39)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                        (0.39)


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS**

**The Board of Directors****Garden Fresh Restaurant Corp.**

             We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No. 33-93568, No. 333-57615, No. 333-93359 and No. 333-48440) onForm S-8 of Garden Fresh Restaurant Corp. of our report dated November 14, 2000, relating to the balance sheets of Garden Fresh Restaurant Corp. as of September 30, 1999 and 2000, and the related statements of operations, shareholders’equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the two year period ended September 30, 2000, which appears in the September 30, 2000, annual report on Form 10-K of Garden Fresh Restaurant Corp.

**KPMG LLP**

**San Diego, California****December 29, 2000**

****