alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<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>                                           4,454
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,670
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      8,275
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                23,398
<PP&E>                                       1,099,916
<DEPRECIATION>                                 763,151
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 363,354
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           31,562
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   363,354
<SALES>                                        217,342
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               217,342
<CGS>                                           68,012
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   70,134
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,457
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  58
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                146,085
<INCOME-TAX>                                    98,967
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             47,118
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    47,118
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of LOUDTechnologies Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), we, James T. Engen and Timothy P. O’Neil, ChiefExecutive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

(2) The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.
| Dated: November 13, 2006 | By:    | /s/ James T. Engen                                                                                                       |   |
|--------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                     |   | James T. Engen                                                                                                           |
|                     |   | *Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer*                                                                        |
|                     |   |                                                                                                                     |
|                     |   |                                                                                                                     |
|                     |   | /s/ Timothy P. O’Neil                                                                                               |   |
|                     |   | Timothy P. O’Neil                                                                                                   |
|                     |   | *Chief Financial Officer, Senior Vice President,  Secretary and Treasurer (Principal Financial and  Accounting Officer)* |

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to LOUD Technologies Inc. and will be retainedby the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

----
#### Frederick W. WILHELM et al. v. STANDARD OIL COMPANY (INDIANA) et al.

No. 6095.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Nov. 20, 1936.

Harrison E. Fryberger, of New York City, and Erwin Seago, of Chicago, 111., for appellants.

Before EVANS and SPARKS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

On motion of counsel for appellant, it is ordered by the court that this appeal be, and the same is hereby, dismissed without costs.
# C_2021206EN.01002001.xml

| 31.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 206/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 206/20

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Upravno sodišče Republike Slovenije (Slovenia) lodged on 25 March 2021 — Republic of Slovenia

(Case C-186/21)

(2021/C 206/25)

Language of the case: Slovenian

Referring court

Upravno sodišče Republike Slovenije

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: J. A.

Defendant: Republic of Slovenia

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 8(3)(d) of the Reception Directive II (1) be construed as meaning that the term ‘including’ expressly includes, among the objective criteria, the fact that ‘[the person concerned has] already had the opportunity to access the asylum procedure’? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 8(3)(d) of the Reception Directive II (1) be construed as meaning that the term ‘including’ expressly includes, among the objective criteria, the fact that ‘[the person concerned has] already had the opportunity to access the asylum procedure’?

| 2. | If the answer to that question is in the negative, must Article 8(3)(d) of the Reception Directive II be construed as meaning that, in the circumstances set out above, detention is permissible only on the basis of predetermined objective criteria and of a prior finding that the applicant for international protection has already had the opportunity to lodge an application for international protection, so that it can be concluded that there are reasonable grounds to believe that that application was made merely in order to delay or frustrate the enforcement of a return decision? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to that question is in the negative, must Article 8(3)(d) of the Reception Directive II be construed as meaning that, in the circumstances set out above, detention is permissible only on the basis of predetermined objective criteria and of a prior finding that the applicant for international protection has already had the opportunity to lodge an application for international protection, so that it can be concluded that there are reasonable grounds to believe that that application was made merely in order to delay or frustrate the enforcement of a return decision?

---

(1)  Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection (recast) (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 96).

---
# C_2023035EN.01008102.xml

| 30.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 35/81 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 35/81

---

Order of the General Court of 1 December 2022 — Foz v Council

(Case T-481/21) (1)

(2023/C 35/103)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 412, 11.10.2021.

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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>  THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED
FROM  THE  REGISTRANT'S  1996  AUDITED   CONSOLIDATED  BALANCE  SHEETS  AND
STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND> 
<CIK>                         0000939730
<NAME>                        EXPERT SOFTWARE, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1.00
<CASH>                                         2,959
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  3,775
<ALLOWANCES>                                   5,061
<INVENTORY>                                    1,256
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               13,428
<PP&E>                                         1,897
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,909)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 19,077
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          8,352
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       75
<OTHER-SE>                                     10,350
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   19,077
<SALES>                                        31,012
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               31,012
<CGS>                                          16,420
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  45,452
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               1,364
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (92)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (14,348)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (4,067)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (10,281)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (10,281)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (1.33)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (1.33)
        


</TABLE>
# C_2022472EN.01004002.xml

| 12.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 472/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 472/40

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2022 — Philip Morris Products v EUIPO (Representation of black and white lines)

(Case T-502/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark representing black and white lines - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 472/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Philip Morris Products SA (Neuchâtel, Switzerland) (represented by: L. Alonso Domingo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: P. Georgieva, E. Nicolás Gómez, M. Eberl and D. Hanf, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 26 May 2021 (Case R 78/2021-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Philip Morris Products SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Philip Morris Products SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 391, 27.9.2021.

---
EXHIBIT 11 - STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS.


EARNINGS (LOSS) PER COMMON SHARE:  Primary earnings (loss) per common 
share are based on the weighted average number of shares outstanding 
during the period after consideration of the diluted effect of stock 
options and restricted stock awards.  The primary weighted average number 
of common shares outstanding was 5,433,174, 5,360,982, and 5,345,844 for 
the years ended December 31, 1995, 1994, and 1993 respectively.  Also, 
fully diluted earnings per common share assume conversion of dilutive 
securities when the result is dilutive.
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. CP17-488-000; CP17-489-000]

Take notice that a technical conference will be held on Thursday, July 12, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. (Eastern Standard Time), in a room to be designated at the offices of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.

At the technical conference, the Commission staff and the parties to the proceeding should be prepared to discuss all issues and comments filed in the proceeding.

                    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please send an email to                     *accessibility@ferc.gov*                     or call toll free (866) 208-3372 (voice) or (202) 502-8659 (TTY), or send a fax to (202) 208-2106 with the required accommodations.                

                    All interested persons and staff are permitted to attend. For further information please contact Shannon ONeil at (202) 502-6046 or email                     *Shannon.ONeil@ferc.gov.*

Dated: July 5, 2018.

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2018-14813 Filed 7-10-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

December 28, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
129198 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 129198 COA: 254494 Wayne CC: 03-011212-01 TOMMY BROWN, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 23, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals is cons idered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

s1221 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 28, 2005

Clerk
No. 10733.

#### Hutchins *v.*The City of Cleveland.

Decided March 2, 1909.

Error to Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

*Mr. Wm. S. Fitzgerald,*for plaintiff in error,

*Mr. Newton D. Baker,*city solicitor, for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Summers, Spear, Sitauck and Price, JJ., concur.
#### Lloyd Donald GREESON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-1246.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 4, 1972.

Lloyd Donald Greeson, in pro. per.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and PEARSON and CHARLES CARROLL, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This court, proceeding in the manner outlined and recommended by the Supreme Court of the United States in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, having deferred ruling on a motion of the public defender to withdraw as counsel for the indigent-defendant and having furnished appellant with a copy of the public defender’s memorandum brief, and having allowed the appellant a reasonable specified time within which to raise any points that he chose in support of his appeal, and the appellant having failed to respond thereto, on consideration thereof upon full examination of the proceedings we conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Plymale v. State, Fla.App. 1967, *188201 So.2d 85; Odle v. State, Fla.App. 1970, 241 So.2d 184. Whereupon, the public defender’s said motion to withdraw is granted and the order or judgment is hereby affirmed.
[No. 293-3.

Division Three.

June 14, 1971.]

#### Bernard Barton, *Appellant,*v. Harold J. Dahmen *et al., Respondents.*

*Richard R. Loucks,*for appellant.

*Charles O. Shoemaker, Jr.*(of *Aitken, Schauble & Shoe*maker), for respondents.

Munson, C.J.

Plaintiff, Bernard Barton, appeals from a summary judgment for defendants in a lawsuit based upon tortious interference with a business expectancy.

The pleadings, motion, supporting and controverting affidavits before the court show:

Ted Beasley, salesman for plaintiff, and Houston Jones, as seller, entered into an oral listing agreement for the sale of the latter’s 26-unit apartment house. A termination daté for said agreement, although disputed by Beasley, was set *136by Jones for April 1, 1969. This deadline was extended to April 15, 1969. During the running of this “contract” plaintiff’s salesman attempted to negotiate a sale between defendants and Jones. The maximum amount defendants offered, however, was $290,000, $17,000 less than Jones was asking. Negotiations were terminated on April 13 or 14. On April 16, 1969 Jones ran an advertisement in an Idaho newspaper listing the apartment house for sale at $290,000. Thereafter a mutual friend brought Jones and defendants together, at which time Jones offered the property to them at their prior offer. The affidavit of Jones states:

> Without the influence of any individual, I decided to handle the sale of the “26 unit” myself, because Beasley had not gotten any results by the deadline I had set. My decision to sell directly, and not through a realtor, was not in any way caused by anything either [defendant] or anyone on their behalf said to me or anyone else.

The elements of the instant tort are: (1) the existence of a business expectancy; (2) knowledge of the expectancy on the part of the interferer; (3) intentional interference inducing or causing a termination of the expectancy; and (4) resultant damage to the party whose expectancy has been disrupted. *Corinthian Corp. v. White & Bollard, Inc.,*74 Wn.2d 50, 442 P.2d 950 (1968); *Calbom v. Knudtzon,*65 Wn.2d 157, 396 P.2d 148 (1964); 4 Restatement of Torts § 766 (1939). The trial court found issues of material fact with regard to (1), (2) and (4) above, but not as to (3).

There are no evidentiary facts posited by plaintiff which, if established, would tend to prove defendants intentionally interfered with plaintiff’s business expectancy; nor are there any evidentiary facts presented which would support an inference to that effect. *Cf. Preston v. Duncan,*55 Wn.2d 678, 682, 349 P.2d 605 (1960). Consequently, the trial court properly granted defendants’ motion. *Felsman v. Kessler, 2*Wn. App. 493, 468 P.2d 691 (1970) is distinguishable from the instant case in that here there is an uncon *137troverted affidavit of the “disinterested person”, i.e., Jones.

Judgment affirmed.

Green and Evans, JJ., concur.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Bernard B. SCOTT.

No. 60183.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 10, 1978.

Robert F. Fleming, Jr., Kiefer, Glorioso & Fleming, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.

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

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
# C_2022222EN.01002801.xml

| 7.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 222/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222/28

---

Order of the General Court of 25 March 2022 — Saure v Commission

(Case T-151/21) (1)

(Action for annulment - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Commission correspondence concerning the quantity and delivery timings of BioNTech SE COVID-19 vaccines - Initial refusal - Act not open to challenge - Application to modify the form of order sought - Assessing the admissibility of an action at the time it was brought - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2022/C 222/47)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Hans-Wilhem Saure (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: C. Partsch, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Spina, K. Herrmann and G. Gattinara, agents)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks to have set aside the letter of the European Commission of 27 January 2021 rejecting an initial application for access to certain documents.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as being manifestly inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as being manifestly inadmissible.

| 2. | M. Hans-Wilhelm Saure shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission and those relating to the requests to modify the application and the European Commission shall bear its own costs related to the application. |
| --- | --- |

2.

M. Hans-Wilhelm Saure shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission and those relating to the requests to modify the application and the European Commission shall bear its own costs related to the application.

---

(1)  OJ C 189, 17.5.2021.

---
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
     (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)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation
of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles;(c)
    
    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;(d)
    
    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 that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
    Dated: August 14, 2008
    By:
    /s/ James T. EngenJames T. EngenChairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
#### Earl K. WOOD, as Tax Collector of Orange County, Florida, et al., Appellants, v. PRESBYTERIAN HOMES FOR THE SYNOD OF FLORIDA, a Florida corporation not for profit, and City of Winter Park, a Florida corporation, Appellees.

No. 70-884.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 30, 1971.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Orange County; B. C. Muszynski, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.