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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           6,800
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  338,400
<ALLOWANCES>                                    28,700
<INVENTORY>                                     24,500
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               956,200
<PP&E>                                       4,229,300
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,540,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,868,300
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          792,200
<BONDS>                                        692,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      7,600
<COMMON>                                       650,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     295,100
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,868,300
<SALES>                                        869,200
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               869,200
<CGS>                                          300,700
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  626,200
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              37,700
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                206,300
<INCOME-TAX>                                    72,800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            133,500
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   133,500
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 5D2023-2292

LT Case No. 2023-CF-4189

_____________________________

RICHARD LEE BRENNER,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Jonathan D. Sacks, Judge.

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Kathryn Rollison Radtke, 

Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Damaris E. Reynolds, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

July 30, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

HARRIS, KILBANE and MACIVER, JJ., concur.
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
<PAGE>



                                                                    EXHIBIT 13.2

                            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 W.P. Stewart & Co., Ltd. (the "Company")
on Form 20-F for the period ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of
his knowledge:

1.    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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.

Date: March 16, 2005


/s/Rocco Macri
-----------------------------
Rocco Macri
Deputy Managing Director--Chief Financial Officer
# C_2022451EN.01000201.xml

| 28.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 451/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 451/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 6 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus — Estonia) — I.L. v Politsei- ja Piirivalveamet

(Case C-241/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2008/115/EC - Return of illegally staying third-country nationals - Article 15(1) - Detention - Grounds for detention - General criterion based on the risk that the effective enforcement of the removal would be compromised - Risk that the person concerned would commit a criminal offence - Consequences of the establishment of the offence and the imposition of a penalty - Complication of the removal process - Article 6 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Restriction of the fundamental right to liberty - Requirement of a legal basis - Requirements of clarity, predictability and accessibility - Protection against arbitrariness)

(2022/C 451/02)

Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Riigikohus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: I.L.

Defendant: Politsei- ja Piirivalveamet

Operative part of the judgment

Article 15(1) of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals;

must be interpreted as not permitting a Member State to order the detention of an illegally staying third-country national solely on the basis of a general criterion based on the risk that the effective enforcement of the removal would be compromised, without satisfying one of the specific grounds for detention provided for and clearly defined by the legislation implementing that provision in national law.

---

(1)  OJ C 242, 21.6.2021.

---
#### Diana Sherwood, Respondent, v Milard K. Roper, Appellant.

[655 NYS2d 378]

In a matrimonial action, the defendant husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of *276an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Connell, J.), entered January 4, 1996, as denied the branch of his cross motion which was to compel the plaintiff wife to answer certain interrogatories concerning her current law practice, and from an order of the same court, dated April 1, 1996, which, over his objection, certified the case ready for trial.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated April 1, 1996, is dismissed, and it is further,

Ordered that the order entered January 4, 1996, is affirmed, with costs.

The order dated April 1, 1996, did not decide a motion made upon notice, and no appeal as of right lies therefrom *(see, Matter of Hartman v Smith,*207 AD2d 345, 346; *Barry/*Dave/ *Glenn, Inc. v Salkowitz,*181 AD2d 754; CPLR 5701 [a]). No application has been made for permission to appeal, nor are we inclined to grant leave to appeal under the circumstances of this case (CPLR 5701 [c]; *see, Roberts v Modica,*102 AD2d 886).

With regard to the appeal from the order entered January 4, 1996, it is the husband’s contention that the court improperly limited discovery concerning the wife’s interest in her present law firm, on the ground that such information is essential to the valuation of the wife’s New York license to practice law. We disagree. The wife’s license is a separate asset from her legal practice, and the valuation date for a marital asset is a determination which lies squarely within the trial court’s discretion *(see, McSparron v McSparron,*87 NY2d 275, 287-288). Given that the wife’s firm was not formed until after the commencement of the instant action and that there is a clear history of her practice prior to that time, the value of her New York license as of the commencement of the action can be determined without resort to the burdensome discovery demanded by the husband *(see generally, McSparron v McSparron, supra,*at 287; *Finocchio v Finocchio,*162 AD2d 1044, 1045-1046).

The husband’s remaining contentions are without merit. Thompson, J. P., Pizzuto, Joy and Luciano, JJ., concur.
# C_2023164EN.01003301.xml

| 8.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/33

---

Order of the President of the Court of 7 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) — Latvia) — SIA ‘Ogres HES’, intervening parties: Sabiedrisko pakalpojumu regulēšanas komisija, Ekonomikas ministrija, Finanšu ministrija

(Case C-152/21, (1) Ogres HES)

(2023/C 164/43)

Language of the case: Latvian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 242, 21.6.2021.

---
Exhibit 32.2



Pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350)



The undersigned, as the Executive Vice PresidentFinance and Chief
Financial Officer of Georgia-Pacific Corporation, certifies, to the best of my knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 2, 2005, which accompanies this certification fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Georgia-Pacific Corporation at the dates and for the
periods indicated. The foregoing certification is made pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350) and shall not be relied upon for any other purpose.



|                    |  |  |  |                                                                             
|------------------- |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: July 28, 2005 |  |  |  |                                                                             
|                    |  | 
|                    |  |  |  | /s/ DANNY W. HUFF                                                           
|                    |  |  |  | Danny W. Huff Executive Vice President - Finance and Chief Financial Officer



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Georgia-Pacific Corporation and will be retained by Georgia-Pacific Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Virginia L. Adams, Appellant.

[721 NYS2d 291]

Cardona, P. J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Cortland County (Avery, Jr., J.), rendered November 23, 1999, which revoked defendant’s probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.

Following defendant’s conviction in June 1998 of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree, she was sentenced to, *inter alia,*five years’ probation. Thereafter, in September 1999, after defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of disorderly conduct, a violation of probation report was filed alleging that defendant had violated several terms and conditions of her probation, including, *inter alia,*that she attend counseling, report to her probation officer and obey the law. Upon pleading guilty to the violations, defendant’s probation was revoked and she was sentenced to an agreed-upon indeterminate prison term of 2 to 6 years, prompting this appeal.

Initially, we are unpersuaded that County Court erred when it found defendant ineligible for sentencing pursuant to CPL 410.91, which provides the sentencing option of parole supervision for a defendant with a history of controlled substance abuse dependence. Pursuant to the specific requirements of CPL 410.91 (2), an eligible defendant must be a second felony offender meeting certain conditions. Notably, defendant’s only prior felony conviction was vacated and replaced by a youthful offender adjudication *(see,*CPL 720.20), which “is not a judg*708ment of conviction for a crime or any other offense” (CPL 720.35 [1]). Accordingly, in the absence of a predicate felony conviction, defendant is not a second felony offender *(see,*Penal Law § 70.06 [1]) and thus not an eligible defendant under the express language of CPL 410.91.

We further conclude that defendant’s sentence was not harsh and excessive. Although defendant contends that a more lenient sentence would allow her to pursue substance abuse treatment, she received a substantial measure of leniency when the original sentence of probation was imposed and concededly violated the condition which required her to comply with the recommendations of a family counseling service regarding alcohol/substance abuse treatment. Under the circumstances, we find no reason to disturb the sentence imposed by County Court *(see, People v Wilson,*219 AD2d 758, *lv denied*86 NY2d 875).

Mercure, Peters, Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 131 (Monday, July 9, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 31756]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14682]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9980-38-OW]


Notice of Open Meeting of the Environmental Financial Advisory 
Board (EFAB)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The EPA's Environmental Financial Advisory Board (EFAB) will 
hold a public meeting on August 21-22, 2018 in Chicago, Illinois. The 
EFAB is an EPA advisory committee chartered under the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act to provide advice and recommendations to EPA on creative 
approaches to funding environmental programs, projects, and activities.
    The purpose of this meeting is to hear from informed speakers on 
environmental finance issues and EPA priorities; to discuss activities, 
progress, and preliminary recommendations with regards to current EFAB 
work projects; and to consider requests for assistance from EPA program 
offices. Environmental finance discussions and presentations are 
expected on, but not limited to, the following topics: alternative 
project delivery pre-development practices; pre-disaster resiliency 
investment and finance; water system regionalization financing 
strategies; water quality restoration in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed; 
Rural Alaska Waste Backhaul Service Program; and Water Infrastructure 
and Resiliency Finance Center activities. The meeting is open to the 
public; however, seating is limited and attendees must be processed 
through security. All members of the public who wish to attend the 
meeting must register, in advance, no later than Friday, August 3, 
2018.

DATES: The full board meeting will be held Tuesday, August 21, 2018 
from 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m. and Wednesday, August 22, 2018 from 9:00 a.m.-
12:30 p.m.

ADDRESSES: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 5 
Office, Lake Huron Conference Room, 12th Floor, 77 West Jackson 
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on access or services 
for individuals with disabilities, or to request accommodations for a 
disability, please contact Alecia Crichlow at (202) 564-5188 or 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0b687962686367647c256a676e68626a4b6e7b6a256c647d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c4a7b6ada7aca8abb3eaa5a8a1a7ada584a1b4a5eaa3abb2">[email protected]</span></a> at least 14 days prior to the meeting to allow 
as much time as possible to process your request.

    Dated: June 22, 2018.
Andrew Sawyers,
Director, Office of Wastewater Management, Office of Water.
[FR Doc. 2018-14682 Filed 7-6-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Rawlings vs. Paty et al., adms.

In a petition in debt, under the statute, by an administrator, it is unnecessary to make profert of the letters of administration.

*Error to Desha Circuit Court.*

Hon. John C. Murray, Circuit Judge.

Garland & Randolph, for the plaintiff.

An ordinary action of assumpsit or debt could not have been *205maintained without making proferí of the letters of administration (18 *Ark.*243). And no reason is perceived why the same necessity does not exist, in this form of action, for the plaintiffs to show their right to sue in the capacity of administrators.

Mr. Justice Compton

delivered the opinion of the Court.

To a petition in debt brought by the administrator and admini-. stratrix of David Lewis, deceased, the defendant demurred upon the ground that in the petition the plaintiffs made no profert of their letters of administration.

None was necessary. The proceeding by petition in debt is purely a statutory remedy. The statute prescribes the form of the petition, and then provides that every suit commenced in accordance with the form prescribed, shall be prosecuted to final judgment and execution, in the same manner as if it had been commenced in the ordinary form. *Gould's Dig., chap.*130. In this case, the form prescribed was followed, not only substantially, but literally.

Let the judgment be affirmed with costs. '
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

MANILA LAKMAITREE

, Appellant,

v.

21ST MORTGAGE CORPORATION

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 17

- 1263

[ March 2, 2022]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,

Broward County ; Joel T. Lazarus, Senior Judge ; L.T. Case No.

062015CA011997AXXXCE

.

Brian Korte of Korte & Wortman, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Sonia Henriques McDowell of Quint airos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A.,

Orlando, for appellee.

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT

P ER C URIAM

.

This case is before the court on remand from the Florida Supreme

Court. We reverse the summary final judgment and remand to the circuit

court for further proceedings consistent with Page v. Deutsche Bank Trust

Company Americas , 308 So. 3d 953 (Fla. 2020).

G ROSS

, G ERBER and K UNTZ

, JJ., concur

.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 131 (Monday, July 9, 2018)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Page 31641]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14744]




                        Presidential Documents 



Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 131 / Monday, July 9, 2018 / 
Presidential Documents

___________________________________________________________________

Title 3--
The President

[[Page 31641]]

                Proclamation 9766 of July 3, 2018

                
Honoring the Victims of the Tragedy in Annapolis, 
                Maryland

                By the President of the United States of America

                A Proclamation

                Our Nation shares the sorrow of those affected by the 
                shooting at the Capital Gazette newspaper in Annapolis, 
                Maryland. Americans across the country are united in 
                calling upon God to be with the victims and to bring 
                aid and comfort to their families and friends. As a 
                mark of solemn respect for the victims of the terrible 
                act of violence perpetrated on June 28, 2018, by the 
                authority vested in me as President of the United 
                States by the Constitution and the laws of the United 
                States of America, I hereby order that the flag of the 
                United States shall be flown at half-staff at the White 
                House and upon all public buildings and grounds, at all 
                military posts and naval stations, and on all naval 
                vessels of the Federal Government in the District of 
                Columbia and throughout the United States and its 
                Territories and possessions until sunset, July 3, 2018. 
                I also direct that the flag shall be flown at half-
                staff for the same length of time at all United States 
                embassies, legations, consular offices, and other 
                facilities abroad, including all military facilities 
                and naval vessels and stations.

                IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 
                third day of July, in the year of our Lord two thousand 
                eighteen, and of the Independence of the United States 
                of America the two hundred and forty-second.
                <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
                
                    (Presidential Sig.)

[FR Doc. 2018-14744
Filed 7-6-18; 8:45 am]
Billing code 3295-F8-P
Exhibit 31.2



Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to rule 13a-14 or 15d-14 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended (Exchange Act), pursuant to section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



I, Pasquale A. Ambrogio, certify that:



1. I
have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the third quarterly period ended September 30, 2003 (Quarterly Report) of GIANT GROUP, LTD. (Company or Registrant);



2. Based on my knowledge, this Quarterly 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 Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report;



4. The Registrants other certifying officer and I am 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, to ensure
that material information relating to the Registrant is made known to us by others within the Company, particularly during the period in which this Quarterly Report is being prepared;



(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this Quarterly
Report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this Quarterly Report based on such evaluation; and



(c) Disclosed in this Quarterly Report any change in the Registrants internal control over financial reporting that
occurred during the Registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The Registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrants auditors and the audit committee of the Registrants Board of Directors:



(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.



|Dated: |  | November 13, 2003                         
|------ |  | ------------------------------------------
|       | 
|By:    |  | /s/ Pasquale A. Ambrogio                  
|      
|Title: |  | Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
No. 00-977.

#### Barrett *v.*Borough of Carlisle.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.