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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-30-1997
<CASH>                                           3,781
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   52,161
<ALLOWANCES>                                       210
<INVENTORY>                                    101,542
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               185,023
<PP&E>                                       1,245,318
<DEPRECIATION>                                 580,504
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 931,884
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          132,503
<BONDS>                                        463,072
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       129,915
<OTHER-SE>                                     (8,172)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   931,884
<SALES>                                        228,641
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               228,641
<CGS>                                          211,477
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  211,477
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   254
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,415
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (11,616)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (4,252)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,364)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,364)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# C_2021320EN.01001301.xml

| 9.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 320/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 320/13

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 2 de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria (Spain) lodged on 6 April 2021 — Zulima v Servicios prescriptor y medios de pagos E.F.C.  S.A.U.

(Case C-215/21)

(2021/C 320/16)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Zulima

Defendant: Servicios prescriptor y medios de pagos E.F.C. S.A.U.

Question referred

Where a consumer raises a complaint against an unfair term under Directive 93/13/EC (1) and an out-of-court offer to settle is made, Article 22 of the Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil (Law of Civil Procedure) has the effect of compelling the consumer to bear the costs of the proceedings without regard to the seller’s or supplier’s prior conduct in having failed to heed the letters of formal notice [issued to him]. Do those Spanish rules of procedure constitute a significant obstacle capable of dissuading a consumer from exercising the right to effective judicial review of the potentially unfair nature of a contractual term contrary to the principle of effectiveness and Article[s] 6(1) and 7(1) of Directive 93/13?

---

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

---
#### SIDNEY SCHWARTZ ASSOCIATES, INC., a New York Corporation, Petitioner, v. SECURITY MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, a Maryland Corporation, Respondent.

No. 40963.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 30, 1971.

Rehearing Denied June 14, 1971.

Certiorari denied.

ROBERTS, C. J., and CARLTON, ADKINS and DEKLE, JJ., concur.

ERVIN, J., dissents.
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 136 (Monday, July 16, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 32895]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15072]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service

[NPS-MWR-INDU-25223; PS.SMWLA0077.00.1]


Minor Boundary Revision at Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notification of boundary revision.

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

SUMMARY: The boundary of Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore is modified 
to include 1.30 acres of land located in Porter County, Indiana, 
immediately adjacent to the boundary of the national lakeshore. The 
United States will acquire the parcel by a land exchange.

DATES: The effective date of this boundary revision is July 16, 2018.

ADDRESSES: The map depicting this boundary revision is available for 
inspection at the following locations: National Park Service, Land 
Resources Program Center, Midwest Region, 601 Riverfront Drive, Omaha, 
Nebraska 68102 and National Park Service, Department of the Interior, 
1849 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20240.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chief Realty Officer Daniel L. Betts, 
National Park Service, Land Resources Program Center, Midwest Region, 
601 Riverfront Drive, Omaha, Nebraska 68102, telephone (402) 661-1780.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 54 
U.S.C. 100506(c), the boundary of Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore is 
modified to include 1.30 acres of adjacent land identified as Tract 09-
131. The boundary revision is depicted on Map No. 626/140729, dated 
January, 2018.
    54 U.S.C. 100506(c) provides that, after notifying the House 
Committee on Natural Resources and the Senate Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to make 
this boundary revision upon publication of notice in the Federal 
Register. The Committees have been notified of this boundary revision. 
This boundary revision and subsequent acquisition will be accomplished 
in accordance with a settlement to a case pending in the Federal Court 
System regarding an encroachment onto Federal land. There will be no 
alienation of Federal land through the land exchange.

    Dated: April 25, 2018.
Cameron H. Sholly,
Regional Director, Midwest Region.
[FR Doc. 2018-15072 Filed 7-13-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4312-52-P
# C_2022198EN.01005001.xml

| 16.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 198/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 198/50

---

Order of the General Court of 7 March 2022 — the airscreen company v EUIPO — Moviescreens Rental (airscreen)

(Case T-382/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark airscreen - Earlier EU word mark AIRSCREEN - Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

(2022/C 198/73)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: the airscreen company GmbH & Co. KG (Münster, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch and N. Willich, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Hanf, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: Moviescreens Rental GmbH (Damme, Germany) (represented by: D. Schulz and P. Stelzig, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 May 2021 (Case R 1990/2020-4), concerning opposition proceedings between the airscreen company and Moviescreens Rental.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | the airscreen company GmbH & Co. KG shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

the airscreen company GmbH & Co. KG shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 329, 16.8.2021.

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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                       1,178,819
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,620,885
<ALLOWANCES>                                    71,358
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,932,566
<PP&E>                                      65,853,052
<DEPRECIATION>                              22,279,355
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              46,564,782
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,803,753
<BONDS>                                     18,035,889
<COMMON>                                       183,069
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     97,450
<OTHER-SE>                                  25,444,621
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                46,564,782
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,001,582
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               24,056,923
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (337,736)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,378,332
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (16,095,937)
<INCOME-TAX>                                (3,100,027)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (12,995,910)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (12,995,910)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.73)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.73)
        


</TABLE>
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-19-00837-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF K.N.A., J.R.A., K.Y.A., J.C.A., Children

From the 341st Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018-FLD-001498-D3

Honorable Rebecca Ramirez Palomo, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE MARTINEZ, JUSTICE ALVAREZ, AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, appellant’s motion to dismiss is 

GRANTED, and this appeal is DISMISSED. It is ORDERED that no costs be assessed against 

appellant in relation to this appeal because she is indigent. 

SIGNED March 4, 2020.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
#### SUCCESSION of Freddie Robertson KILLINGSWORTH and Mrs. Rome Schlater Johnston Tuttle et al. v. Edward Hill SCHLATER et al.

No. 53128.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 1, 1973.

In re: W. B. Middleton, Jr. and St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of Iberville, 270 So.2d 196.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1 The following certification is provided by the undersigned Chairman of the Board of Directors and
Principal Executive Officer of Merchants and Manufacturers Bancorporation, Inc. on the basis of
such officers knowledge and belief for the sole purpose of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT I, Michael J. Murry, Chairman of the Board of Directors and Principal Executive Officer of
Merchants and Manufacturers Bancorporation, Inc., certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. (1) The Annual Report of Merchants and Manufacturers Bancorporation, Inc. for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, (14 U.S.C. 78m or 78o (d)); and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Merchants and Manufacturers Bancorporation, Inc. /s/ Michael J. Murry
Name: Michael J. Murry
Title: Chairman of the Board of Directors and Principal Executive Officer
Date: March 16, 2005
# C_2022207EN.01003701.xml

| 23.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 207/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 207/37

---

Judgment of the General Court of 30 March 2022 — L’Oréal v EUIPO — Debonair Trading Internacional (SO COUTURE)

(Case T-30/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark SO COUTURE - EU word mark SO ...? - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2022/C 207/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: L’Oréal (Clichy, France) (represented by: M. Treis and E. M. Strobel, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Gája, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Debonair Trading Internacional Lda (Funchal, Portugal) (represented by: J. Quirin and J. P. Jacquey, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 November 2020 (Case R 158/2016 5), relating to opposition proceedings between Debonair Trading Internacional and L’Oréal.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders L’Oréal to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders L’Oréal to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 128, 12.4.2021.

---
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

RYAN WESLEY REESE, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-1202 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed October 10, 2018. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Samantha L. Ward, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Ivy R. Ginsberg, Special Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Cerese Crawford Taylor, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. CASANUEVA, BLACK, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

                        CONSENT OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation into the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Sand
Technology Inc. (the "Company") for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2000, the
Form S-8 Registration Statements for the Sand Technology Inc. 1996 Stock
Incentive Plan (Registration No. 333-8538) and the 1996 Stock Option Plan
(Registration No. 333-7462) and the Form F-2 Registration Statement of Sand
Technology Inc. (Registration No. 333-12216) of our report dated September 8,
2000 on the consolidated financial statements of the Company for the fiscal year
ended July 31, 2000.



                                            Deloitte & Touche
                                            Chartered Accountants

September 29, 2000
Montreal, Quebec


                                       58
<PAGE>

                                   SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of Section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, the registrant certifies that it meets all of the requirements for filing
on Form 20-F and has duly caused this Annual Report on Form 20-F to be signed on
its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.



                                           SAND TECHNOLOGY INC.


                                           /s/ Arthur G. Ritchie
                                           -----------------------------
September 29, 2000                         Arthur G. Ritchie
                                           Chairman of the Board,
                                           President and Chief Executive
                                           Officer


                                       59
<PAGE>   1







                    BARRISTER INFORMATION SYSTEMS CORPORATION















                       EXHIBIT 24 - KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP
                           CONSENT REGARDING FORMS S-8



<PAGE>   2






Independent Auditors' Consent
-----------------------------


The Board of Directors
Barrister Information Systems Corporation:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No.
33-8749 and 33-23309) on Form S-8 and (No.333-3701) on Form S-3 of Barrister
Information Systems Corporation of our reports dated June 22, 1998 relating to
the balance sheets of Barrister Information Systems Corporation as of March 31,
1998 and 1997, and the related statements of operations, shareholders' equity
and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended March 31,
1998, and the related schedule which reports appear in or are incorporated by
reference in the March 31, 1998 annual report on Form 10-K of Barrister
Information Systems Corporation.



KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

Buffalo, New York
June 26, 1998









                                    Page -23-
#### Crystal Plank REGAN and Travelers Insurance Company, etc., Petitioners, v. Linda EVANS, Respondent.

No. 42176.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 16, 1972.

Certiorari denied.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
# C_2022463EN.01003002.xml

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2022 — Oi Dromoi tis Elias v Commission

(Case T-352/21) (1)

(Institutional law - Selection of partners to carry out Europe Direct (2021-2025) activities in Greece - Call for proposals procedure - Eligibility criteria - Rejection of application)

(2022/C 463/41)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Politistikos Organismos Oi Dromoi tis Elias (Kalamata, Greece) (represented by: S. Vardalas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouchagiar and F. Erlbacher, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of Decision Ares (2021) 2580204 contained in the European Commission’s letter of 16 April 2021 informing it of the rejection of its proposal in the context of the procedure for the selection of partners to carry out the activities of the Europe Direct programme in Greece (ED-GREECE-2020).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Politistikos Organismos Oi Dromoi tis Elias to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Politistikos Organismos Oi Dromoi tis Elias to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 357, 6.9.2021.

---
IV

House Calendar No. 239

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 563

[Report No. 103–828]

Providing for consideration of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 301)

expressing the sense of the Congress regarding entitlements.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 4, 1994

Mr. DERRICK, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution;

which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of the concurrent resolution (H.

Con. Res. 301) expressing the sense of the Congress

regarding entitlements.

1 Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this

2 resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of

3 rule XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee

4 of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consider5 ation of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 301) ex6 pressing the sense of the Congress regarding entitlements.

7 General debate shall be confined to the concurrent resolu-
2

HRES 563 RH

1 tion and the amendments made in order by this resolution

2 and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and con3 trolled by the chairman and ranking minority member of

4 the Committee on Government Operations. After general

5 debate the concurrent resolution shall be considered for

6 amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be consid7 ered as read, and the question on adopting the amendment

8 numbered 1 in the report of the Committee on Rules ac9 companying this resolution shall be considered as pending

10 without intervening motion or debate. No other amend11 ment shall be in order except those printed in the report

12 of the Committee on Rules. Each other amendment may

13 be offered only in the order printed in the report, may

14 be offered only by a Member designated in the report,

15 shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time

16 specified in the report equally divided and controlled by

17 the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject

18 to amendment. All points of order against amendments

19 printed in the report are waived. At the conclusion of con20 sideration of the concurrent resolution for amendment, the

21 Committee shall rise and report the concurrent resolution

22 to the House with such amendments as may have been

23 adopted. The previous question shall be considered as or24 dered on the concurrent resolution and amendments there-
3

HRES 563 RH

1 to to final adoption without intervening motion or demand

2 for division of the question.
House Calendar No. 239

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 563

[Report No. 103–828]

RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of the concurrent resothe Congress regarding entitlements. lution (H. Con. Res. 301) expressing the sense of

OCTOBER 4, 1994

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
#### MARTHA GUTHRIE, assignee of MARCUS E. CAPELLE, Sheriff, *vs.*THOMAS MORRISON.

Bail to the Sheriff let in to defend the original action after judgment by default against his principal, and also judgment by default against himself.

Action on a bail bond.

Judgment by default. Rule to show cause why the judgment should not be set aside and the deft, let in to defend the original action.

*Gilpin,*for plaintiff.

*J. A. Bayard,*for defendant.

Suit was commenced by the plff. against one John V. Hyatt, for whose appearance the deft, entered bail to the sheriff. Judgment went against principal by default; and the bail bond having been sued, judgment went also against the bail, the deft, by default. He now filed an affidavit that he was informed by his principal that the claim in the original action was settled, and that he need not trouble himself further about it; in consequence of which information he suffered judgment to go by default; and he swore that he had been informed by Hyatt that he had a good defence on the merits in the original action.

The Court made the rule absolute so far as to let Morrison in to defend the original action against his principal, this judgment to remain a security for what should be found due on that trial. And they referred to the act of assembly *(Digest 62)*which gives the court power to grant to the bail “such relief, upon such terms and in such manner, as shall be just and equitable.”

Rule absolute.
#### Sherman L’HOMMEDIEU, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 78-1270.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 25, 1978.

Sherman L’Hommedieu, in pro per.

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

Before HENDRY, NATHAN and HUB-BART, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, pursuant to Fla.R.App.P. 9.140(g), having taken this appeal from the summary denial of his motion for post conviction relief under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850 and this court having considered the record presented and having further determined that it conclusively appears therefrom that appellant is entitled to no relief, the denial of his motion is affirmed.