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

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                           1,441
<SECURITIES>                                     4,530
<RECEIVABLES>                                      756
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,474
<PP&E>                                           7,415
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,282
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   9,417
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,689
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            73
<OTHER-SE>                                     (3,352)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     9,417
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   252
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,084
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (832)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (832)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (6,759)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,591)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (2.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.06)


</TABLE>
# C_2021382EN.01001302.xml

| 20.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/13

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 14 June 2021 — R.T. v Hauptzollamt Hamburg

(Case C-368/21)

(2021/C 382/17)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: R.T.

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg

Questions referred

| 1. | Are Articles 30 and 60 of Directive 2006/112/EC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the place of importation under VAT legislation of a means of transport registered in a third country and imported into the EU in breach of customs legislation is located in the Member State in which the customs legislation was infringed and the means of transport was first used as such in the EU, or is it located in the Member State in which the person who failed to comply with customs obligations resides and uses the vehicle? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are Articles 30 and 60 of Directive 2006/112/EC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the place of importation under VAT legislation of a means of transport registered in a third country and imported into the EU in breach of customs legislation is located in the Member State in which the customs legislation was infringed and the means of transport was first used as such in the EU, or is it located in the Member State in which the person who failed to comply with customs obligations resides and uses the vehicle?

| 2. | If the place of importation is located in a Member State other than Germany, is Directive 2006/112/EC and, in particular, Articles 30 and 60 thereof, infringed where Article 87(4) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 (2) is declared under a national provision to be applicable mutatis mutandis to import VAT? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the place of importation is located in a Member State other than Germany, is Directive 2006/112/EC and, in particular, Articles 30 and 60 thereof, infringed where Article 87(4) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 (2) is declared under a national provision to be applicable mutatis mutandis to import VAT?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).

(2)  Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code (OJ 2013 L 269, p. 1).

---
EXHIBIT NO. 15





To the Board of Directors and Shareholders of
Gerber Scientific, Inc.


            Re: Registration Statements on Form S-8,
                File No. 2-93695, No. 33-58668,
                No. 333-261777, and No. 333-42879

                Registration Statement on Form S-3,
                File No. 33-58670


With   respect   to  the  subject  Registration  Statements,   we
acknowledge our awareness of the use therein of our report  dated
November  18,  1998  related to our review of  interim  financial
information.

Pursuant  to  Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act, such  reports
are not considered a part of a Registration Statement prepared or
certified  by an accountant or a report prepared or certified  by
an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of the Act.


                                        Very truly yours,


                                        /s/ KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP


                                        KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP




Hartford, Connecticut
November 18, 1998
#### Russell RYAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-862.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Feb. 1, 1971.

Appeal dismissed.
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Marshall CRAFT v. Harry F. CONNICK, District Attorney.

No. 62467.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 15, 1978.

In re: Marshall Craft applying for remedial writs. Parish of Orleans.

Not considered. Application must first be made to the trial court.

DIXON, J., dissents, being of the opinion the writ should be granted.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1107 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1107

 To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the inclusion in 
   the Office of the Under Secretary for Health of the Department of 
Veterans Affairs of health care personnel appointed to positions in the 
                    Veterans Health Administration.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 15, 1993

 Mr. Rockefeller (by request) introduced the following bill; which was 
     read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the inclusion in 
   the Office of the Under Secretary for Health of the Department of 
Veterans Affairs of health care personnel appointed to positions in the 
                    Veterans Health Administration.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR HEALTH.

    The second paragraph (8) of section 7306(a) of title 38, United 
States Code (relating to other personnel), is--
            (1) redesignated as paragraph (9); and
            (2) amended by inserting ``and by chapter 74 of this 
        title'' before the period at the end.

                                 <all>
```
#### Omer J. REICHMAN, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 70-262.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 8, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Certiorari denied.
EX-10.6.1





 Exhibit 10.6.1 

FIRST AMENDMENT TO LEASE 

This First Amendment To Lease (“Amendment”) is made this 11th day of May, 2018, and shall be effective as of January 1, 2018 (the “Effective Date”), by and between Pontiac Center Investment, LLC, a Michigan limited
liability company (the “Landlord”) and United Shore Financial Services, LLC, a Michigan limited liability company (the
“Tenant”) with respect to the Lease dated June 28, 2017 (the “Lease”) of the premises commonly known as 585 South Boulevard East, Pontiac, Michigan, as
more particularly described in the Lease (the “Premises”).  
 RECITALS:

 WHEREAS, following the execution and delivery of the Lease the Landlord and Tenant discovered that the street address of the Demised
Premises identified in the Lease was incomplete and the Landlord and Tenant desire to amend the Lease, as provided in this Amendment; 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and covenants set forth in this Amendment, and other good and valuable consideration, the
receipt and legal sufficiency of which is hereby severally acknowledged, the Landlord and Tenant hereby agree as follows: 

1.    Capitalized Terms. All capitalized terms used in this Amendment and not otherwise defined herein shall have the
meanings ascribed to such terms in the Lease. 
 2.    Amendment of Lease. The Landlord and Tenant hereby agree that the
Lease shall be amended as follows: 
 (a)    all references to the street address of the Demised Premises being
“585 South Boulevard, Pontiac, Michigan” contained in the Lease shall be stricken and deleted from the Lease and shall be replaced with and superseded by “585 South Boulevard, also known as 585 South Boulevard East, Pontiac,
Michigan.” 
 3.    Counterparts and Execution. This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts each of
which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. Facsimile signatures and electronically transmitted copies of signatures (e.g., in an Adobe PDF file) shall be deemed valid and binding to the
same extent as the original. 

  
 Page 1 of 2














 4.    Ratification of Lease. Except as expressly amended hereby, the Lease
shall remain in full force and effect between the Landlord and Tenant and is hereby ratified and affirmed by them. 
 WHEREFOR, the
Landlord and Tenant have executed this Amendment to the Lease as of the date first set forth above. 
  

			
	LANDLORD:
	
	Pontiac Center Investment, LLC,
	a Michigan limited liability company
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Jeffrey A. Ishbia

		 	Jeffrey A. Ishbia
	Its:	 	Manager
	
	TENANT:
	
	United Shore Financial Services, LLC,
	a Michigan limited liability company
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Mathew Ishbia

		 	Mathew Ishbia
	Its:	 	Chief Executive Officer


  
 Page 2 of 2
#### Jeanette Markowitz et al., Respondents, v Supermarkets General Corporation, Appellant.

[655 NYS2d 983]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vinik, J.), dated March 11, 1996, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

*494Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the defendant’s motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The plaintiff Jeanette Markowitz alleged that she was injured when she slipped and fell on a foreign substance on the floor of a store owned by the defendant. However, in opposition to the prima facie case proffered by the defendant in support of its motion for summary judgment, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant either created the dangerous condition which caused the accident or had actual or constructive notice of the condition and failed to remedy it within a reasonable time *(see, Gordon v American Museum of Natural History,*67 NY2d 836; *Negri v Stop & Shop,*65 NY2d 625; *Bernard v Waldbaum, Inc.,*232 AD2d 596). Accordingly, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted. Mangano, P. J., Ritter, Sullivan, Altman and McGinity, JJ., concur.
#### Richard Joseph HARPER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-476.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 15, 1973.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Broward County; M. Daniel Futch, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
EX-32.2 5 glt-ex322_6.htm EX-32.2
 
 Exhibit 32.2


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2022 of Glatfelter Corporation (the “Company”) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ramesh Shettigar Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer & Treasurer of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:





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


2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Glatfelter and will be retained by Glatfelter and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





May 10, 2022





By/s/ Ramesh ShettigarRamesh ShettigarSenior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer & Treasurer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           16373
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      168
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 16571
<PP&E>                                           16992
<DEPRECIATION>                                    6849
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   26714
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              405
<BONDS>                                          11495
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       14314
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     26714
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 45986
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     5502
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  2093
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                3096
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  35295
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              35295
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 (2032)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     33263
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   398.21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   398.21
        

</TABLE>
#### Joel MESSER v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY.

No. 62063.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 5, 1978.

In re: Department of Corrections through the Attorney General, William J. Guste, Jr., applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit. Civil Service Commission.

Writ not considered. Court of Appeal judgment became final because application for rehearing in Court of Appeal was filed late and no timely application has been made to this Court.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 521 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 House Calendar No. 214
103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 521

                          [Report No. 103-705]

Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the 
  bill (S. 2182) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1995 for 
    military activities of the Department of Defense, for military 
construction, and for defense programs of the Department of Energy, to 
   prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed 
                    Forces, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            August 16, 1994

    Mr. Frost, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the 
  bill (S. 2182) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1995 for 
    military activities of the Department of Defense, for military 
construction, and for defense programs of the Department of Energy, to 
   prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed 
                    Forces, and for other purposes.

    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order to consider the conference report to accompany the bill (S. 2182) 
to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1995 for military 
activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and 
for defense programs of the Department of Energy, to prescribe 
personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for 
other purposes. All points of order against the conference report and 
against its consideration are waived.
                                     

                                                 House Calendar No. 214

103d CONGRESS

  2d Session

                              H. RES. 521

                          [Report No. 103-705]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the 
  bill (S. 2182) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1995 for 
    military activities of the Department of Defense, for military 
construction, and for defense programs of the Department of Energy, to 
   prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed 
                    Forces, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            August 16, 1994

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7161

GEORGE W. KELLY, Petitioner - Appellant, versusJOHN CARMICHAEL; CHARLES MOLONY CONDON, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-97-3660-6-20AK) Submitted: November 19, 1998 Decided: December 3, 1998 Before HAMILTON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.George W. Kelly, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: George W. Kelly seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistratejudge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Kelly v. Carmichael , No. CA-97-3660-6-20AK (E.D.N.C. June 1, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
IV

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 528

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that a commemorative

postage stamp should be issued in honor of Dr. Benjamin Elijah Mays.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

AUGUST 21, 1994

Mr. LEWIS of Georgia (for himself, Mr. DIXON, Mr. BISHOP, Mr. HILLIARD,

Mr. OWENS, and Ms. MCKINNEY) submitted the following resolution;

which was referred to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that

a commemorative postage stamp should be issued in

honor of Dr. Benjamin Elijah Mays.

Whereas Benjamin Elijah Mays, throughout his distinguished

career of more than half a century as an educator, civil

and human rights nonviolent leader, and public theologian, has inspired people of all races throughout the

world by his persistent commitment to excellence;

Whereas Benjamin Elijah Mays persevered, despite the frustrations inherent in segregation, to begin an illustrious

career in education;

Whereas as dean of the School of Religion of Howard University and later as President of Morehouse College in Atlanta, Georgia, for 27 years, Benjamin Elijah Mays over-
2

•HRES 528 IH

came seemingly insurmountable obstacles to offer quality

education to all Americans, especially African Americans;

Whereas at the commencement of World War II, when most

colleges suffered from a lack of available students and

the demise of Morehouse College appeared imminent,

Benjamin Mays prevented the college from permanently

closing its doors by vigorously recruiting potential students and thereby aiding in the development of future

generations of African American leaders;

Whereas, as a mentor to Martin Luther King, Jr., Benjamin

Mays has been called the ‘‘schoolmaster of the civil rights

movement’’;

Whereas Benjamin Mays was instrumental in the elimination

of segregated public facilities in the United States, and

promoted the cause of nonviolence through peaceful protests during a time in this Nation that was often marred

by racial violence; and

Whereas Benjamin Mays has been the recipient of numerous

accolades throughout his career, including 56 honorary

degrees from universities across the Nation and abroad

and the naming of 7 American schools and academic

buildings and a street in his honor: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that a commemorative postage stamp should

3 be issued by the United States Postal Service post4 humously to honor Dr. Benjamin Elijah Mays.

Æ
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Wilson DUGAR.

No. 60493.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 10, 1978.

Patrick D. McArdle, Orleans Indigent Defender Program, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Harry F. Con-nick, Dist. Atty., Lindsay Larson, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.