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

<ARTICLE>                          5
<MULTIPLIER>                    1000
       
<S>                         <C>               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>               9-MOS             3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  FEB-29-1996      FEB-29-1996
<PERIOD-START>                      MAR-1-1995       SEP-3-1995
<PERIOD-END>                        DEC-2-1995       DEC-2-1995
<CASH>                                     926              926
<SECURITIES>                                 0                0
<RECEIVABLES>                             4012             4012
<ALLOWANCES>                                90               90
<INVENTORY>                               7539             7539
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          1064             1064
<PP&E>                                   13588            13588
<DEPRECIATION>                            7154             7154
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           21222            21222
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     4200             4200
<BONDS>                                      0                0
<COMMON>                                    17               17
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        0                0
<PREFERRED>                                  0                0
<OTHER-SE>                               14299            14299
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             21222            21222
<SALES>                                  15451             5655
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         15451             5655
<CGS>                                    12157             4893
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             5696             1943
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           (72)              11
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             0                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         157               55
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          (2487)           (1246)
<INCOME-TAX>                              (450)            (191)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          0                0
<DISCONTINUED>                               0                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              0                0
<CHANGES>                                    0                0
<NET-INCOME>                             (2037)           (1055)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            (1.70)           (0.88)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                0                0
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

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

June 30, 2003

         The undersigned Gary Clifford, duly appointed and incumbent officer of
Counsel Corporation, a Canadian Corporation ("Corporation"), in connection with
the Corporation's Annual Report on Form 20-F for the annual period ended
December 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), does hereby represent, warrant and certify pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, as amended, that to the best
of his knowledge:

        (a)     The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
                or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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


         By:      /s/ Gary Clifford
                  -------------------------------
         Name:    Allan Silber
         Title:   Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                           UT
<CIK> 0000077227
<NAME> PENNSYLVANIA ELECTRIC COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000
<CURRENCY>                                  US DOLLARS
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    1,402,439
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                     84,389
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         836,290
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                     2,149,241
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,472,359
<COMMON>                                       105,812
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      285,487
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            261,369    <F1>
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 652,668
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          105,000    <F2>
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           596,434
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                   80,012
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                12,275
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>               3,025,970
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                4,472,359
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      246,249
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                             7,098
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     173,607
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     180,705
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         65,544
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                              15,878
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  81,422






<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        15,932    <F3>
<NET-INCOME>                                    65,490
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        154
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   64,610    <F4>
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                       180,000    <F5>
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                       47,450
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                        (577,714)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1> INCLUDES ACCUMULATED OTHER COMPREHENSIVE INCOME OF $9,105.
<F2> REPRESENTS COMPANY-OBLIGATED MANDATORILY REDEEMABLE PREFERRED
<F2> SECURITIES.
<F3> INCLUDES AMOUNT FOR COMPANY-OBLIGATED MANDATORILY REDEEMABLE
<F3> PREFERRED SECURITIES OF $2,297.
<F4> INCLUDES LOSS ON PREFERRED STOCK REACQUSITION OF $726.
<F5> REPRESENTS COMMON STOCK DIVIDENDS PAID TO PARENT CORPORATION.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 516 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 516

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                       August 18, 1994.
    Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule XXIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 3433) to provide for the management of portions of the Presidio under 
the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior. The first reading of the bill 
shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill 
are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and the amendments made 
in order by this resolution and shall not exceed seventy-five minutes, with 
forty-five minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources and thirty minutes equally 
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Ways and Means. After general debate the bill shall be considered 
for amendment under the five-minute rule for a period not to exceed three hours 
(excluding time consumed by recorded votes and proceedings incidental thereto). 
It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of 
amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
recommended by the Committee on Natural Resources now printed in the bill, 
modified by the amendments recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means now 
printed in the bill and by the amendments printed in the report of the Committee 
on Rules accompanying this resolution. The committee amendment in the nature of 
a substitute, as modified, shall be considered as read. All points of order 
against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as modified, are 
waived. No amendment directly or indirectly changing section 3(h)(9), section 
3(h)(12), section 3(h)(13), or section 3(j) of the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as modified, shall be in order. At the conclusion of consideration 
of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a 
separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the 
Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, 
as modified. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one 
motion to recommit with or without instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
----

(2004/C 78 E/0576)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3428/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(18 November 2003)

Subject:   Eurostat scandal — unanswered questions

On 8 July OLAF forwarded its file to the judiciary in Luxembourg. Did President Prodi or his staff contact Commissioner Solbes or his office to discuss the measures required?

----
# Automatic Categorical Exclusion - NEPA Memo to File

                - Title:  Automatic Categorical Exclusion - NEPA Memo to File 
                - Form #:         GSA4002      
                - Current Revision Date:  03/2015
                - Authority or Regulation: 

PDF versions of forms use Adobe      ReaderTM.      Download Adobe ReaderTM

Search for another form

Print PageEmail Page

Top
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND> This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
balance sheets and statement of operations found on pages 25 to 27 of the 
Company's Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1998, and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         364,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,688,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   160,000
<INVENTORY>                                 34,868,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            41,271,000
<PP&E>                                       4,012,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,036,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              44,583,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       16,032,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  25,091,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                44,583,000
<SALES>                                     30,828,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            30,828,000
<CGS>                                       21,991,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               21,991,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             5,333,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,065,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,522,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,023,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,499,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,499,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .24
        

</TABLE>
# C_2020279EN.01005201.xml

| 24.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 279/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/52

---

Action brought on 2 July 2020 — KR v Commission

(Case T-408/20)

(2020/C 279/65)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: KR (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of 25 October 2019 to no longer regard the applicant’s child as being his dependent child within the meaning of Article 2 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 25 October 2019 to no longer regard the applicant’s child as being his dependent child within the meaning of Article 2 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law alleging that the Commission misconstrued, first, the concept of dependent child referred to in Article 2 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and, second, revised Conclusion No 223/04 of 30 January 2013 of the Heads of Administration of the European Union.

---
Exhibit
10.1


 


ALLIED
ESPORTS ENTERTAINMENT, INC.


 


December
31, 2020


 


VIA
EMAIL


 


Frank
Ng


Frank
Ng Frank@alliedesports.com


 


		Re:	Employment
                                         Agreement



 


Reference
is made to that certain Employment Agreement dated effective September 20, 2019 between Allied Esports Entertainment, Inc., a
Delaware corporation (the “Company”) and you (as amended from time to time, the “Employment Agreement”).
By executing below, you agree that, from and after January 1, 2021, your annual base salary will be $400,000, and that the Company
may, but is no longer required to, issue to you any shares of the Company’s common stock as compensation for your services.


 


	 	Sincerely,
	 	 
	 	Adam
    Pliska, President


 


	ACKNOWLEDGED:	 
	 	 
	/s/
    Frank Ng	 
	Frank
    Ng
# C_2020339EN.01003201.xml

| 12.10.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 339/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.10.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 339/32

---

Action brought on 27 August 2020 — Stada Arzneimittel v EUIPO — Pfizer (RUXIMBLIS)

(Case T-542/20)

(2020/C 339/40)

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 RUXIMBLIS — Application No. 17 865 738

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 June 2020 in Case R 1877/2019-4

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, including the costs of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs, including the costs of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Plea in law

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

---
#### Matthew EDWARDS and Gent Green, Jr., Appellants, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-711.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 30, 1973.

Charles W. Musgrove, Public Defender, West Palm Beach, and Richard S. Power, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellants.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and William W. Herring, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Defendants-appellants were charged with and convicted of conspiracy to commit a felony, to wit, robbery. Defendants contend the trial court erred by denying defendants’ requested instruction on conspiracy to commit a misdemeanor, to wit, petit larceny. Finding that defendants’ requests were properly made and should have been granted under the decision and for the reasons set forth in Brown v. State, Fla.1968, 206 So.2d 377, we reverse and remand for a new trial. See Sprinkle v. State, Fla.App.1967, 203 So.2d 48; King v. State, Fla.1957, 104 So.2d 730; see also F. S. Section 833.05, F.S.A.

Reversed.

REED, C. J., and OWEN and MAGER, JJ., concur.
#### J. W. EISELE v. Paul DOPPELT.

No. 38932.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. So.2d 194. 225
# C_2020433EN.01006001.xml

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/60

---

Action brought on 5 October 2020 — FJ and Others v EEAS

(Case T-619/20)

(2020/C 433/74)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: FJ and five other applicants (represented by: J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

Defendant: European External Action Service

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

| — | annul the applicants’ pay slips for the month of December 2019 in so far as they apply, for the first time, correction coefficients, which were prescribed with retroactive effect from 1 April and 1 July 2019; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the applicants’ pay slips for the month of December 2019 in so far as they apply, for the first time, correction coefficients, which were prescribed with retroactive effect from 1 April and 1 July 2019;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on pleas in law, alleging infringement of Articles 64 and 65 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’), infringement of the principle of equal treatment in terms of equivalence of purchasing power, and manifest error of assessment.

The applicants claim that, in order to set the correction coefficient applicable to the salary of the applicants posted outside the European Union, EUROSTAT should collect data specific to their place of employment, in accordance with the rules for application of Articles 64 and 65 of the Staff Regulations, as laid down in Annex XI thereto.

They also argue that the coefficients, which were laid down in the context of an international collaboration agreement between EUROSTAT, the OECD and the UN, fell from January 2018 to January 2019 from 239,7 to 94,0 whereas, for that same period, the coefficients applied to the salaries of UN personnel were increased to take account of inflation. In 2017, the Congolese franc (CDF) underwent a sharp devaluation as against the dollar (USD) and the euro, which, coupled with substantial inflation, resulted in a significant increase in prices in USD, according to the analysis of the IMF.

The applicants take the view that the defendant has not explained how the coefficients applied take account of those essential elements.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 236 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 236

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                        March 11, 1994.
Whereas the values of sacrificial love and integrity are fundamental in 
        developing the moral character essential to maintaining a strong Nation;
Whereas parents by their example of sacrifical love and the transmission of 
        moral and cultural values play a crucial and determinant role in the 
        development of youth;
Whereas time has demonstrated that the traditional American family is the most 
        stable and secure environment in which parents can successfully rear 
        future generations;
Whereas the current breakdown of the traditional American family is a major 
        factor contributing to the rise of crime, teen pregnancy, educational 
        failure, substance abuse, and suicide among our Nation's youth; and
Whereas it is in the interest of society and government to adopt policies, that 
        help families stay together by strengthening and sustaining fathers and 
        mothers in fulfilling their parental roles: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That on Parents Day, July 28, 1994, all private citizens, 
organizations and governmental and legislative bodies at the local, 
State and Federal level are encouraged in recognize this day through 
proclamations, activities and educational efforts in the furtherance of 
recognizing, uplifting and supporting the role of parents in the 
rearing of their children.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### Raymond R. STONE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. R-80.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 29, 1972.

Raymond R. Stone, in pro. per. .

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and William E. Whitlock, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks reversal of the order denying his motion for post-conviction relief. It is urged that the decision of Franklin v. State, 257 So.2d 21 (Fla.1971), which declared Florida Statutes § *800.01,*F.S.A., unconstitutional for vagueness and uncertainty, should have retroactive effect. This contention is directly contradicted by the *Franklin*case itself, wherein it is stated:

> “In view of our former decisions, this judgment holding the felony statute void is not retroactive, but prospective only.” 257 So.2d at 24.

We have considered appellant’s remaining contentions of error and find them to be totally without merit. The order appealed herein is therefore affirmed.

SPECTOR, C. J., and WIGGINTON and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.