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

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
S.D. WARREN COMPANY'S (THE "COMPANY") CONDENSED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE
YEAR ENDED OCTOBER 2, 1996 AND BALANCE SHEET AS OF OCTOBER 2, 1996 FOUND ON
PAGES 15 AND 16, RESPECTIVELY, OF THE COMPANY'S ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K
FINANCIAL INFORMATION FOR THE YEAR ENDED OCTOBER 2, 1996.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-02-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-28-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-02-1996
<CASH>                                          49,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   54,400
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,300
<INVENTORY>                                    195,700
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               355,400
<PP&E>                                       1,268,200
<DEPRECIATION>                                 153,500
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,725,400
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          246,000
<BONDS>                                        902,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           88,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     356,100
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,725,400
<SALES>                                      1,441,600
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,441,600
<CGS>                                        1,186,600
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,320,700
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   100
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             108,900
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,900
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,100
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,800
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (2,000)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,800
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.09)
        

</TABLE>
#### TO SIR WITH LOVE, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. COLONY TOWERS, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 70-781.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 15, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### SMART FARM CO. *v.*PROMAK.

1. Covenants — Building Restrictions — Waiver.

Rinding of trial judge that building restrictions of record in residential district had not been waived, and were still in force, *held,*justified, on record.

2. Same — Injunction—Damages to Adjoining Lot Owners Immaterial.

Purchasers of lot in subdivision restricted of record to use for residential purposes are enjoined from conducting confectionary business in basement of their dwelling at suit of subdivision owner, where restrictions are still in force, although it is not shown that either plaintiff or .adjoining lot owners will suffer consequential damages.

Appeal from Wayne; George (Fred M.), J., presiding.

Submitted January 8, 1932.

(Docket No. 73, Calendar No. 36,134.)

Decided April 4, 1932.

*685Bill by Smart Farm Company, a Michigan corporation, against Stanley Promalc and another to enjoin violation of a building restriction. Bill dismissed. Plaintiff appeals’.

Reversed.

*Dykema, Jones $ Wheat (Benjamin J. Manley,*of counsel), for plaintiff.

Clark, C. J.

Plaintiff, a corporation, is owner of the lots of Smart Farm Subdivision, Wayne county, except lots sold. Defendants are land contract purchasers of a lot, the use of which, in common with other lots, is restricted of record to a single or double residence.

Defendants remodeled the basement under their, dwelling, provided a front entrance, and opened and now conduct a confectionary business therein. This bill was filed to enjoin it. The bill was dismissed. Plaintiff has appealed.

The trial judge, in his opinion filed, states that right to enforce restrictions had not been waived, and that they are in force and effect. We agree with him. The restrictions remain beneficial. But he dismissed the bill on the theory “that neither the plaintiff nor adjoining property owners will suffer any consequential damage by reason of the maintenance of the said basement "candy store.”

The matter of damages to plaintiff is immaterial. *Longton*v. *Stedman,*182 Mich. 405; Berry on Restrictions, § 413.

Defendants admittedly have violated the restrictions, and ought to be enjoined.

Reversed, with costs. Plaintiff may have decree.

McDonald, Potter, Sharpe, North, Fead, Wiest, and Btjtzel, JJ., concurred.
|     |                                                                                                                            |
|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (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. |

|                                       |
|---------------------------------------|
|                                       |  |
| /s/  PETER M. MCCORMICK          |   |
| Peter M. McCormick                    |
| President and Chief Executive Officer |

|                                            |
|--------------------------------------------|
|                                            |  |
| /s/  MARTY J. SCHWENNER               |   |
| Marty J. Schwenner                         |
| Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
IV

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 585

Authorizing and directing the Speaker to administer the oath of office to

the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Steve Largent.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NOVEMBER 29, 1994

Mr. MICHEL submitted the following resolution; which was considered and

agreed to.

RESOLUTION

Authorizing and directing the Speaker to administer the oath

of office to the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Steve

Largent.

1 Resolved, That the Speaker is hereby authorized and

2 directed to administer the oath of office to the gentleman

3 from Oklahoma, Mr. Steve Largent.

4 Resolved, That the question of the final right of Mr.

5 Steve Largent to a seat in the One Hundred Third

6 Congress be referred to the Committee on House

7 Administration.

Æ
#### HENRY TEMPLEMAN *vs.*WILLIAM BIDDLE.

Local custom; how pleaded.

Trespass. Narr. Demurrer.

This was an action of trespass for taking and carrying away a Crop of oats sowed by plaintiff, and claimed as belonging to him as the away going tenant of the farm now occupied by defendant. See 1 *Harr. Rey.*522.

The narr. contained four countsthe 1st and 4th in trespass generally ; the 3d on a contract with the landlord that plaintiff should have the oat crop; and the 2d set out a special custom that the tenants from year to year of lands in St. George’s hundred, should be permitted to sow a crop of oats in the spring of the expiration of their tenancy, and to reap the crop after them.

To this there was a general and special demurrer; and the special causes assigned were, that no day was alledged for the commission of the trespass; that the custom was not alledged to extend to all the tenants of lands in St. George’s hundred; and that the extent and duration of the custom were not set out.

*W. H.*Rogers, for demurrant:

The custom is not properly pleaded. It must be universal over the *locus in quo*as to which it is alledged ; in this case throughout the hundred of St. George’s, and to every farm in that hundred. A valid custom must be based on length of time, and this must be considerable ; generally, for time out of mind; and it must be uninterrupted. And some sufficient length of time must be alledged as the basis of a custom. Here the term of Templeman*s tenancy is not set out. Now it must appear that the custom was in existence at the commencement of his tenancy, to make it a part of the contract of letting, and it must be shown to have continued down to the time *76of the trespass committed. In this view the time of the trespass is a material averment. 1 *Douglass,*201; 16 *East.*71; 20 *Com. Laxo Rep.*202. The other counts are upon a contract with the landlord, and not upon the custom. These cannot be joined. They are em tirely distinct in their nature.

*Rodney,*contra :

It is impossible to specify the existence of this local custom: nor could it be laid as existing from time out of memory. No custom in this country could be pleaded in that manner. The requisites contended for, as applying to declarations on customs, are all drawn from the.precedents in *Douglass*and *East,*which are themselves not decided to be right, but which cannot in the nature of things apply to this country; ands our courts will not adopt them, unless with such modifications as our condition requires.

Whether a custom is good must be a matter of proof. As to the universality of this custom, it is alledged that “ the tenants of lands ” in St. George’s hundred, &c., which means all tenants of lands. And the custom is alledged to have existed at ihe time of this tenancy, and for a long time before. This is sufficient to cover all the time.

The other counts do not rest exclusively on a contract with the landlord, but unite his permission and assent to the sowing the oats in accordance with the custom.

*Rodney,*for plaintiff.

*W. H. Rogers,*for defendant.

*The Court*

gave judgment for the demurrant.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Transportation

###### Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

# AGENCY:

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

# ACTION:

Notice of Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board of Directors meeting.

# TIME AND DATE:

The meeting will be held on July 12, 2018, from 12:00 noon to 3:00 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time.

# PLACE:

This meeting will be open to the public via conference call. Any interested person may call 1-877-422-1931, passcode 2855443940, to listen and participate in this meeting.

# STATUS:

Open to the public.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

                        The Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board of Directors (the Board) will continue its work in developing and implementing the Unified Carrier Registration Plan and Agreement and, to that end, may consider matters properly before the Board. An agenda for this meeting will be available no later than 5:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, July 3, 2018, at:                         *https://ucrplan.org.*

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Avelino Gutierrez, Chair, Unified Carrier Registration Board of Directors at (505) 827-4565.

Issued on: June 27, 2018.

Larry W. Minor

Associate Administrator, Office of Policy, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.

[FR Doc. 2018-14355 Filed 6-28-18; 4:15 pm]

 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 131 (Monday, July 9, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 31840]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14659]


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

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS


Advisory Committee on Disability Compensation, Notice of Meeting

    The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Advisory Committee on 
Disability Compensation will meet July 24-25, 2018. The Committee will 
meet at 1722 Eye Street NW, Washington, DC 20006. The meetings will be 
held on the Third Floor in the Training Room and will begin at 8:30 
a.m. and end at 4:30 p.m. EST. The meetings are open to the public.
    The purpose of the Committee is to advise the Secretary of Veterans 
Affairs on the maintenance and periodic readjustment of the VA Schedule 
for Rating Disabilities. The Committee is to assemble and review 
relevant information relating to the nature and character of 
disabilities arising during service in the Armed Forces, provide an 
ongoing assessment of the effectiveness of the rating schedule, and 
give advice on the most appropriate means of responding to the needs of 
Veterans relating to disability compensation.
    The Committee will receive briefings on issues related to 
compensation for Veterans with service-connected disabilities and on 
other VA benefits programs. Time will be allocated for receiving public 
comments. Public comments will be limited to three minutes each. 
Individuals wishing to make oral statements before the Committee will 
be accommodated on a first-come, first-served basis. Individuals who 
speak are invited to submit one to two page summaries of their comments 
at the time of the meeting for inclusion in the official meeting 
record.
    The public may submit written statements for the Committee's review 
to Stacy Boyd, Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Benefits 
Administration, Compensation Service, Policy Staff (211A), 810 Vermont 
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420 or email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#287b5c494b51066a47514c685e49064f475e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="47143326243e6905283e2307312669202831">[email protected]</span></a>. Since 
the meeting is being held in a government building, a photo I.D. must 
be presented at the Guard's Desk as a part of the screening process. 
Due to an increase in security protocols, you should allow an 
additional 30 minutes before the meeting begins. Routine escort will be 
provided until 8:30 a.m. each day. Any member of the public wishing to 
attend the meeting or seeking additional information should email Stacy 
Boyd.

    Dated: July 3, 2018.
Jelessa M. Burney,
Federal Advisory Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2018-14659 Filed 7-6-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
EXHIBIT 32





<PAGE>



     In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report of Whitemark  Homes,  Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period  ending  September 30, 2009 as filed with
the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  (the  "Report"),  Barry  Reese,  the
Principal Executive and Financial Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to the best of his 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 results of the Company.


September 5, 2012                  By:  /s/ Barry Reese
                                        ---------------------------------
                                        Barry Reese, Principal Executive and
                                        Financial Officer
<PAGE>
Exhibit 31.1

                                 CERTIFICATIONS


I, Daniel W. Rumsey, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of P-Com, 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)), 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) 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

c) 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

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 (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

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:  May 13, 2005              /s/ Daniel W. Rumsey
                                  -----------------------------
                                   Daniel W. Rumsey
                                   Chief Restructuring Officer
                                   and Chief Financial Officer
                                  (Principal Executive Officer)
# C_2020129EN.01000601.xml

| 20.4.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 129/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.4.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/6

---

Action brought on 12 February 2020 — AI v ECDC

(Case T-79/20)

(2020/C 129/06)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: AI (represented by: L. Levi and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision dated 5 April 2019 rejecting his request for assistance of 10 April 2018; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision dated 5 April 2019 rejecting his request for assistance of 10 April 2018;

| — | annul, if need be, the decision dated 4 November 2019 rejecting his complaint dated 5 July 2019; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, if need be, the decision dated 4 November 2019 rejecting his complaint dated 5 July 2019;

| — | order financial compensation which can be evaluated, ex aequo et bono, as the sum of EUR 75 000; |
| --- | --- |

—

order financial compensation which can be evaluated, ex aequo et bono, as the sum of EUR 75 000;

| — | order the reimbursement of his legal costs incurred. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the reimbursement of his legal costs incurred.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging violation of the duty to state reasons and the right to be heard. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging violation of the duty to state reasons and the right to be heard.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment and a breach of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment and a breach of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging violation of the duty of care. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging violation of the duty of care.

---