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

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                      16,088,247
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       1,912,288
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                            20,350,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 69,989,862
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                    237,840,773
<ALLOWANCE>                                  2,208,798
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             362,824,476
<DEPOSITS>                                 320,149,345
<SHORT-TERM>                                 2,008,684
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          3,727,337
<LONG-TERM>                                  7,919,873
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       184,927
<OTHER-SE>                                  28,834,310
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             362,824,476
<INTEREST-LOAN>                             21,675,669
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            4,080,413
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               547,937
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            26,304,019
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                          12,813,243
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          13,750,944
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                       12,553,075
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                1,087,749
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             265,939
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                             12,046,422
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,135,795
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   2,704,798
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,704,798
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.62
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.62
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.21
<LOANS-NON>                                    491,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                   317,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             1,548,000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  509,000
<RECOVERIES>                                    82,000
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            2,209,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         2,209,000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                          UT
<CIK> 0000065350
<NAME> METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER>                                    1,000
<CURRENCY>                                 US DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                              SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                     1
<BOOK-VALUE>                                 PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                   1,091,331
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                   164,917
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                        206,026
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                    2,014,670
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                      0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              3,476,944
<COMMON>                                       66,273
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                     400,200
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            20,080  <F1>
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                486,553
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         100,000  <F2>
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                          496,886
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                             49,100
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                           0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                 72,000
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                      25
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                           0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                         0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                    0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>              2,272,380
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>               3,476,944
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                     628,312
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                                0
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                    543,936
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                    543,936
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        84,376
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                              7,223
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 91,599
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       41,318  <F3>
<NET-INCOME>                                   31,369  <F4>
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                         0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                  31,369
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                       25,000  <F5>
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                      45,770
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         (8,486)
<EPS-BASIC>                                         0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0
<FN>
<F1> INCLUDES  ACCUMULATED OTHER  COMPREHENSIVE  INCOME OF $130. <F2> REPRESENTS
COMPANY-OBLIGATED  TRUST  PREFERRED  SECURITIES OF $100,000 <F3> INCLUDES AMOUNT
FOR COMPANY-OBLIGATED TRUST PREFERRED SECURITIES OF $4,818.
<F4> AMOUNT IS NET OF INCOME TAX EXPENSE OF $18,912.
<F5> REPRESENTS COMMON STOCK DIVIDENDS PAID TO PARENT CORPORATION.
</FN>


</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.4


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


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Avery Communications, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ending March 31, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Thomas C. Ratchford, 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:

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

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


/s/ Thomas C. Ratchford
----------------------------------
Thomas C. Ratchford
Chief Financial Officer
December 16, 2002
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE AUDITED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF RWB MEDICAL INCOME PROPERTIES 1 LIMITED PARTNERSHIP FOR
THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         766,621
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,103,846
<ALLOWANCES>                                   930,869
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,026,383
<PP&E>                                      13,700,691
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,633,623
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,104,436
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,038,406
<BONDS>                                        813,333
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,992,018<F1>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                13,104,436
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            15,226,616
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               14,287,904
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                21,191
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             100,948
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                816,573
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            816,573
<DISCONTINUED>                                (308,413)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   508,160
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>5.02(31) REPRESENTS TOTAL PARTNERSHIP CAPITAL INCLUDING NET INCOME NET OF
DISTRIBUTIONS PAID.
</FN>


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF CELERIS CORPORATION DATED JUNE 30, 2000
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                       5,743,844
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,412,844
<ALLOWANCES>                                   513,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             9,549,746
<PP&E>                                       1,545,475
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,095,221
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,626,271
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        31,787
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,250,852
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,095,221
<SALES>                                      5,648,254
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,648,254
<CGS>                                        3,854,325
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,820,946
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,839,658)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (1,839,658)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,839,658)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.59)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.59)


</TABLE>
# C_2022002EN.01002002.xml

| 3.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 2/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 2/20

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Romania) lodged on 14 September 2021 — AA v Banca S

(Case C-566/21)

(2022/C 2/25)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant and defendant at first instance: S

Respondent and applicant at first instance: AA

Question referred

Does Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC on unfair terms in consumer contracts, (1) as interpreted in the case-law of the Court of Justice, allow a term to be altered in such a way that the purely potestative right of the seller or supplier to convert the currency of the credit agreement in fact constitutes an obligation on the seller or supplier if that alteration is entirely to the benefit of the consumer and the mere removal of the unfair term from the agreement is of no benefit to him or her?

---

(1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).

---
Exhibit 4.1


 





Alaia Capital, LLC


10 Corbin Drive


Darien, Connecticut 06820


 


March 16, 2021


m+ Buffer 20 Fund, m+ funds Trust, Series 1-17


c/o The Bank of New York Mellon, as Trustee

240 Greenwich Street, 22W Floor


New York, New York 10286








 


		Re:	m+ funds Trust, Series 1-17 (the “Trust”)



 


 


Ladies and Gentlemen:


 


We have examined Amendment No. 1 to the
Registration Statement (File No. 333-252545) for the above captioned Trust. We hereby consent to the use in the Registration Statement
of the references to Alaia Capital, LLC as evaluator.


 


You are hereby authorized to file a copy
of this letter with the Securities and Exchange Commission.


 


 


 


	 	Very truly yours,	 
	 	 	 
	 	Alaia Capital, LLC	 
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Oscar Loynaz	 
	 	 	Name: Oscar Loynaz	 
	 	 	Title:  Managing Director
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 42917

STATE OF IDAHO ,

Plaintiff

- Respondent ,

v.

GERALD BYRON CUMMINGS, JR. ,

Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2015 Unpublished Opinion No. 712

Filed: November 16, 2015

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Twin Falls County. Hon. G. Richard Bevan , District Judge.

Order denying I.C .R. 35(a) motion for correction of an illegal sentence

, affirmed

.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Brian R. Dickson , Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________
Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge;

and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
Gerald Byron Cummings, Jr. pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine . Idaho Code

§ 37

- 2732(c)(1) . The district court sentenced Cummings to a unified term of four years with one

year determinate (2012 case) , to run consecutively to Cum m ing’s existing sentence (2008 case)

. Nearly two years later, Cummings filed a n Idaho Criminal Rule 35 (a) motion for correction of an

illegal sentence in th e 2012 case , which was denied by the district court. Cummings appeals

alleging that the sentence imposed in 2012 was illegal since at that time he was on parole for the

2008 case, and not incarcerated, the district court did not have the authority to orde r the 2012

sentence be served consecutively to the 2008 sentence

.2

Cummings contends that pursuant to I.C. § 18

- 308

, as construed by State v. Bello , 135

Idaho 442, 445, 19 P.3 d 66

, 69 (Ct. App. 2001), the 2012 sentence could not be ordered

consecutive to th e 2008 sentence. However, as Cummings acknowledges

, in State v. Calley

, 1 40

Idaho 663

, 665, 99 P.3d 616, 618 (2004) and State v. Cisneros

- Gonzalez , 141 Idaho 494, 496

, 112 P.3d 782, 784 (2004) , the Idaho Supreme Court abrogated Bello and held that I.C. § 18

- 308
did not apply and that the district court could order the second sentence to run separately from

the prison sentence. Therefore, the district court’s order denying Cummings ’ Rule 35 (a) motion

is affirmed.
# C_2022237EN.01001601.xml

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — ‘Romega’ UAB v Valstybinė maisto ir veterinarijos tarnyba

(Case C-89/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Food law - Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 - Microbiological criteria for foodstuffs - Article 1 - Annex I - Fresh poultry meat - Checks by the competent national authorities for the presence of the salmonella serotypes listed in point 1.28 of Chapter 1 of that annex - Checks for the presence of other pathogenic microorganisms - Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 - Article 14(8) - Discretion of the national authorities - Scope)

(2022/C 237/20)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘Romega’ UAB

Defendant: Valstybinė maisto ir veterinarijos tarnyba

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 of 15 November 2005 on microbiological criteria for foodstuffs, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1086/2011 of 27 October 2011, read in conjunction with Article 14(8) of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety, must be interpreted as meaning that the competent authority of a Member State may regard as unsafe within the meaning of Article 14(1) and (2) of Regulation No 178/2002 the food category consisting in fresh poultry meat in which pathogenic microorganisms other than the salmonella serotypes listed in point 1.28 of Chapter 1 of Annex I to Regulation No 2073/2005 have been detected.

---

(1)  OJ C 163, 3.5.2021.

---
#### John P. PEEVY et al. v. TOWN OF JONESBORO.

No. 54209.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 19, 1973.

In re: John P. Peevy et al. applying for Certiorari, or Writ of Review, to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Jackson. 286 So.2d 378.

Writ Denied — Limited to the assignments of errors raised, and in the absence of no plea for injunctive relief, we find the result correct on the facts found by the Court of Appeal.
AUBURN NATIONAL BANCORPORATION, INC AND SUBSIDIARIES

EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Auburn National Bancorporation, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-K/A for the period ending December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as of the date hereof (the Report), I, E.L. Spencer, Jr., President, Chief Executive Officer and
Chairman of the Board of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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



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

Date: April 10, 2009



|                                                            
|------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ E.L. Spencer, Jr.                                       
|                                                            
|E.L. Spencer, Jr.                                           
|President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the
Board
### UNPUBLISHED



# UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



#  L OIS B. C HANDLER ,

Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. C ASUAL C ORNERG ROUP , I NCORPORATED , Defendant-Appellee, No. 00-2209



#  and C LAUDIO D ELVECCHIO , President and CEO in his official capacity and in his personal capacity; K AREN R ASMUSSEN , In her official capacity and in her personal capacity, Defendants. 

# 
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.

T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-99-1626-A) Submitted: May 17, 2001 Decided: May 25, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.COUNSEL Lois B. Chandler, Appellant Pro Se. David C. Burton, Sean Michael Gibbons, Steven David Brown, WILLIAMS, MULLEN, CLARK & DOBBINS, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

OPINION
PER CURIAM:Lois B. Chandler appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Casual Corner in her employment discrimination action. Claims submitted to this court on appeal from the district court’s grant of summary judgment are subject to de novo review. See Mitchell v. Data General Corp. , 12 F.3d 1310, 1313 (4th Cir. 1993). Chandler first claims that Casual Corner’s failure to promote her to the position of store manager was an adverse employment action. The district court, however, properly found no adverse action because it was undisputed that Chandler never applied for the position. See Shackleford v. Deloitte & Touche, LLP , 190 F.3d 398, 400 (5th Cir. 1999). Chandler’s second cause of action alleged Casual Corner acted adversely in withholding quarterly bonuses. The employer assertedlegitimate reasons in conformance with their written disciplinary policy for the actions it undertook, and Chandler offered no evidence that the actions taken were pretextual. See Taylor v. Virginia Union University , 193 F.3d 219, 230 (4th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, we find no reversible error and affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 2 C HANDLERv. C ASUAL C ORNERG ROUPand legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

3 C HANDLERv. C ASUAL C ORNERG ROUP