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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
condensed consolidated balance sheet of Global Marine Inc. and subsidiaries as
of 3-31-98 and the related condensed consolidated statement of operations for
the three months ended 3-31-98, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          62,700
<SECURITIES>                                     1,700
<RECEIVABLES>                                  173,800
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,500
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               361,300
<PP&E>                                       1,600,900
<DEPRECIATION>                                 323,900
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,738,300
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          285,600
<BONDS>                                        299,400
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        17,300
<OTHER-SE>                                     863,200
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,738,300
<SALES>                                          1,200
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               275,100
<CGS>                                              900
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  179,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,400
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 88,400
<INCOME-TAX>                                    20,200
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             68,200
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    68,200
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.40
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.39
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 125 (Thursday, June 28, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 30462]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13938]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Proposal Review Panel for Materials Research; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the 
following meeting:

Name and Committee Code:  Proposal Review Panel for Materials Research 
(DMR) (#1203)--Platform for the Accelerated Realization, Analysis, and 
Discovery of Interface Materials (PARADIM), Materials Innovation 
Platform (MIP), Cornell University, Ithaca, NY (Site Visit).

Date and Time: 
    August 1, 2018; 8:00 a.m.-8:00 p.m.
    August 2, 2018; 8:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m.

Place:  Cornell University, B07 Day Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853.

Type of Meeting: Part open.

Contact Person:  Dr. Charles Ying, Program Director, MPS/DMR, National 
Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Room E 9467, Alexandria, VA 
22314; Telephone: (703) 292-8428.

Purpose of Meeting: Site visit to provide advice and recommendations 
concerning further support of the MIP at Cornell University.

Agenda

Wednesday, August 1, 2018

8:00 a.m.-9:15 a.m. Closed--Executive Session
9:15 a.m.-11:30 a.m. Open--Review of PARADIM MIP
11:30 a.m.-1:00 p.m. Closed--Executive Session
1:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m. Open--Review of PARADIM MIP
4:00 p.m.-8:00 p.m. Closed--Executive Session

Thursday, August 2, 2018

8:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m. Closed--Executive Session

    Reason for Closing: The work being reviewed during closed portions 
of the site review includes information of a proprietary or 
confidential nature, including technical information; financial data, 
such as salaries and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with PARADIM/MIP program. These matters are exempt under 5 
U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: June 25, 2018.
Crystal Robinson,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2018-13938 Filed 6-27-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
#### George TATGENHORST, Jr. v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 45907.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Oct. 5, 1970.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 16, 1970.

George M. S immerman, Dempsey M. Levi, Pascagoula, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen., by Guy N. Rogers, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Timmie Hancock, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### THOMAS ROSS, p. b. *vs.*WILLIAM JACOBS, late Constable, d. b. appellant.

An action will not lie by the plaintiff in an older execution in the hands of a constable, against another constable holding and selling on a younger execution and misapplying the proceeds. There is no *privity*between such plaintiff and constable.

Neither does the act of 6th February, 1833, giving a summary remedy against constables, apply to such a case.

Such an action would lie between the two constables.

And the act of 1833, would avail the plaintiff in the older execution, as against the constable holding that execution.

Certiorari.

This was an action against Jacobs, a constable, for the proceeds of the sale of goods sold on a younger execution in his hands, and which were, applicable to plaintiff’s execution in the hands of another constable.

The exception was to the jurisdiction of the justice.

The summons was for William Jacobs to appear on &c., at &c., s< to answer to Thomas Ross, touching a cause of action wherein $21 94 is demanded;” and the docket of the action was against William Jacobs, *late constable,*on account of the sale of James Hudson’s goods, that Thomas Ross had levied on by virtue of an execution, and the proceeds of the sale not applied to Thomas Ross’ execution; debt $21 94.

*Per Curiam.*

The proceeding against Jacobs is not under the act *446of 1833, giving a summary remedy against constables in certain cases, for Jacobs was not the constable who had Ross’ execution in hand, and the remedy under that act is *for the plaintiff*in the execution, and *against the constable*having it in hand. Neither is the mode of proceeding under that act pursued.

*Eidgely*for appellant.

This is, therefore, an original proceeding by the plaintiff in an older execution, against a constable selling under a younger execution, for the proceeds of such sale. Will such an action lie? Is it money had and received to the plaintiff’s use? and if so, is there such privity between the plaintiff, (the older execution creditor,) and the constable, *to*enable him to sustain the action for money had and received? We think the case fails in *this*particular. What privity can there possibly be between Thomas Ross and William Jacobs?

Ross’ constable, might have maintained an action for money had and received for his use by Jacobs. As between the two constables there is such a privity as' that the law would raise a promise by the constable holding the junior execution, to the constable having the older levy, to pay him the proceeds.

So Ross might have proceeded against his own constable, under *the act*of 1833, but he has no remedy against Jacobs, between whom and him there is no privity.

Judgment reversed.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                              THE GILLETTE COMPANY
                                  Certification

            Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States
                                     Code)

Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the
United States Code, the undersigned, James M. Kilts, Chief Executive Officer of
The Gillette Company, a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), does hereby
certify, to his knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 (the
"Form 10-Q") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act and information contained in the Form 10-Q
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.

Date: May 9, 2005                            /s/ James M. Kilts
                                             -------------------------------
                                             James M. Kilts
                                             Chairman of the Board, Chief
                                             Executive Officer and President

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to The Gillette Company (the "Company") and will be retained by the
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
# C_2022064EN.01000702.xml

| 7.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 64/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/7

---

Appeal brought on 2 August 2021 by Franz Schröder GmbH & Co. KG against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 2 June 2021 in Case T-854/19, Franz Schröder v EUIPO

(Case C-473/21 P)

(2022/C 64/10)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Franz Schröder GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: L. Pechan, N. Fangmann, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, RDS Design ApS

By order of 8 December 2021, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal was not allowed to proceed and that Franz Schröder GmbH & Co. KG should bear its own costs.

---
No. 11074.

#### Conway et al. *v.*Dittrick, Trustee.

Decided February 2, 1909.

Error to Circuit Court of Summit county.

*Mr. W. B. Neff; Mr. W. D. McTighe*and *Messrs. Kohler, Kohler & Mottinger,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Messrs.*Grant, *Sieber & Mather,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed, the question of right to appeal being waived by the parties.

Crew, C. J.. Summers and Si-iauck, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


       
<ARTICLE>                     5 
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000

<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                  DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                        4,082
<SECURITIES>                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                 12,301
<ALLOWANCES>                  60
<INVENTORY>                   1,064
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              19,727
<PP&E>                        73,389
<DEPRECIATION>                20,257
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                74,878
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         9,627
<BONDS>                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         0
<PREFERRED>                   0
<COMMON>                      50
<OTHER-SE>                    29,856
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  74,878
<SALES>                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              120,117
<CGS>                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 109,118
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            1,545
<INCOME-PRETAX>               9,454
<INCOME-TAX>                  3,781
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           5,673
<DISCONTINUED>                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>               0
<CHANGES>                     0
<NET-INCOME>                  5,673
<EPS-PRIMARY>                 1.13
<EPS-DILUTED>                 1.13

        

</TABLE>
# C_2021382EN.01000701.xml

| 20.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/7

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 5 March 2021 — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v AirHelp Germany GmbH

(Case C-142/21)

(2021/C 382/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

Defendant: AirHelp Germany GmbH

The case was removed from the register of the Court of Justice by order of the President of the Court of 18 June 2021.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1997
<CASH>                                          $2,094
<SECURITIES>                                        92
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,591
<ALLOWANCES>                                       210
<INVENTORY>                                      2,389
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 9,876
<PP&E>                                           6,254
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,530
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  16,173
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,623
<BONDS>                                          2,605
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           762
<OTHER-SE>                                      14,716
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    16,173
<SALES>                                          5,925
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,925
<CGS>                                            1,733
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,968
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  70
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,911
<INCOME-TAX>                                       708
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,203
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,203
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    $2.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
[No. 788-1.

Division One—Panel 2.

November 8, 1971.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. John William Newman, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 53750, John C. Tuttle, J., entered September 16, 1970. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion pursuant to RCW 2.06.040.
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002





In connection with the annual report of
Earth Search Sciences, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10KSB for the fiscal year
ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, Tami J. Story, Chief 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 my
knowledge:





(1) This 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 this
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.





Date:
      April 23 , 2008
            /s/
      Tami J. StoryTami J.
    StoryChief Financial
      Officer
Exhibit 32.1



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



The undersigned, as the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Georgia-Pacific Corporation,
certifies, to the best of my knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 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: April 28, 2005



/s/ ALSTON D. CORRELLAlston D. Correll Chairman and Chief Executive 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.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-60250

Summary Calendar

 

EMILY SCIPPER

Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

BUNGE CORP, et al.

Defendants

BUNGE CORP; DAVID TOLLIVER

Defendants - Appellees

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi, Oxford

USDC No. 2:00-CV-43-P-B 

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

August 23, 2002

Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Plaintiff-appellant Emily Scipper appeals the district

court’s summary judgment in favor of defendants-appellants Bunge

Corporation (Bunge) and David Tolliver.

Scipper’s first argues that the district court erred in

refusing to remand this case to state court. Scipper’s argument

utterly fails to deal with the inescapable fact that the last

sentence of her complaint asks for “judgment of, from and against

the Defendants, jointly and severally, in the amount of
No. 02-60250

-2-

$150,000.” As the district court pointed out, the amount

requested from each defendant is greater than $75,000. The

minimum jurisdictional amount requirement is thus satisfied.

Scipper’s second argument is that the district court erred

in finding that Tolliver was fraudulently joined. The test is,

as Scipper recognizes, whether there is no possibility that the

plaintiff will be able to establish a cause of action against the

instate defendant. Tolliver’s affidavit, which Scipper does not

address and did not counter, makes it perfectly clear that the

test has been satisfied and that Tolliver was fraudulently

joined.

Finally, Scipper argues that summary judgment was not

proper. Again, Tolliver’s affidavit, not countered by Scipper,

makes it clear that Bunge had no responsibility for the placement

of the cars that allegedly obstructed her view.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 
No. 02-60250

-3-
EXHIBIT NO. 99



Supplemental Segment Information

|In thousands                     | Three Months Ended
October 31, | Six Months Ended 
October 31,
|-------------------------------- | ------------------------------ | -----------------------------
|                                 | 2001                           | 2000                         
|Orders Received:                 |                                |                              
|Sign Making & Specialty Graphics | $  70,132                      | $  70,717                    
|Apparel & Flexible Materials     | 35,553                         | 44,991                       
|Ophthalmic Lens Processing       | 20,241                         | 22,190                       
|                                 |                                |                              
|                                 | $125,926                       | $137,898                     
|                                 | =======                        | =======                      





|                                 | October 31,2001 | April 30,2001 | 
|-------------------------------- | --------------- | ------------- | 
|Backlog:                         |                 |               | 
|Sign Making & Specialty Graphics | $  3,992        | $  1,420      | 
|Apparel & Flexible Materials     | 28,452          | 35,564        | 
|Ophthalmic Lens Processing       | 3,915           | 3,532         | 
|                                 |                 |               | 
|                                 | $36,359         | $40,516       | 
|                                 | ======          | ======        |
#### William W. KEEGAN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-1492.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 24, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-15-1997
<CASH>                                           2,479
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   18,716
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    109,741
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               133,359
<PP&E>                                         154,374
<DEPRECIATION>                                  73,147
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 226,407
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           74,635
<BONDS>                                         66,444
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        12,530
<OTHER-SE>                                      66,917
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   226,407
<SALES>                                        399,973
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               399,973
<CGS>                                          289,010
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  289,010
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               103,626
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,809
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,528
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,416
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,112
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,112
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .25
        

</TABLE>