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

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
All Amounts Shown In 1's Currency - US Dollars
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    12-MOS         12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              Mar-31-2000    Mar-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                 APR-01-1999    APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                   Mar-31-2000    Mar-31-1999
<CASH>                          10,381,612        165,994
<SECURITIES>                             0              0
<RECEIVABLES>                    6,381,243      3,242,867
<ALLOWANCES>                      (251,000)      (150,000)
<INVENTORY>                      1,924,671      2,554,643
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                19,039,400      6,668,845
<PP&E>                           3,713,322      2,001,716
<DEPRECIATION>                  (1,566,366)      (991,347)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  27,390,241     15,973,475
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>            5,563,309      7,370,895
<BONDS>                                  0              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                    0              0
<PREFERRED>                              0              0
<COMMON>                            15,112          8,287
<OTHER-SE>                      21,380,825      6,392,751
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    27,390,241     15,973,475
<SALES>                         22,668,833     12,673,917
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                22,668,833     12,673,917
<CGS>                            8,409,068      5,464,708
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   19,346,117     12,916,412
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                         0              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                         0              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                (224,363)      (100,573)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 (4,995,248)    (5,764,764)
<INCOME-TAX>                       264,490        232,239
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             (5,259,738)    (5,997,003)
<DISCONTINUED>                           0              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                          0              0
<CHANGES>                                0              0
<NET-INCOME>                    (5,259,738)    (5,997,003)
<EPS-BASIC>                          (0.44)         (1.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                        (0.44)         (1.09)


</TABLE>
**Exhibit      13.1**

|   | (1) | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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:                  May 29, 2006 | /s/                  Leif Johansson                                                       |
|-------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                | Name:                  Leif Johansson                                                     |
|                                | Title:                  President and Chief Executive Officer                             |
|                                |                                                                                      |
| Date:                  May 29, 2006 | /s/                  Pär                  Östberg                               |
|                                | Name:                  Pär Östberg                                              |
|                                | Title:Senior                  Vice President and Chief Financial                  Officer |
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO  EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13a-14(a) OR 15d-14(a)  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO  SECTION 302 OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I,
Robert C. Leahy, Vice President of Finance and Operations of Brooktrout, Inc., certify that:

|Date: March 16, 2005 |     |                                                                                                                        
|-------------------- | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                     | By: | /s/ROBERT C. LEAHYRobert C. Leahy Vice President of Finance and Operations
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)

---



QuickLinks
# C_2023071EN.01002101.xml

| 27.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 71/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/21

---

Judgment of the General Court of 21 December 2022 — E. Breuninger v Commission

(Case T-260/21) (1)

(State aid - Framework system to grant support for uncovered fixed costs in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany - Decision not to raise any objections - Temporary Framework for State aid measures - Individual examination of the aid scheme notified - Measure aimed at remedying a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State - Proportionality)

(2023/C 71/26)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: E. Breuninger GmbH & Co. (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: R. Velte and W. Meilicke, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka, G. Braga da Cruz and C. Kovács, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: P.-L. Krüger and J. Möller, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2020) 8318 final of 20 November 2020 on State aid SA.59289 (2020/N) — Germany COVID-19 — Support for uncovered fixed costs (OJ 2022 C 124, p. 1), as amended by Commission Decision C(2021) 1066 final of 12 February 2021 on State aid SA.61744 (2021/N) — Collective notification of a modification adapting aid schemes approved under the Temporary Framework, in particular following the fifth amendment to the Temporary Framework (OJ 2021 C 77, p. 18).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders E. Breuninger GmbH & Co to bear its own costs and those of the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders E. Breuninger GmbH & Co to bear its own costs and those of the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 263, 5.7.2021.

---
On appellant’s motion to remand, motion allowed; reversed and remanded directions October 17, 1969

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*PAT MASON, *Appellant.*

459 P2d 889

*Donald II. Joyce,*Portland, for the motion.

*Frank J. Coumont,*District Attorney, Astoria, contra.

Before Schwab, Chief Judge, and Langtry, Foley and Brancheield, Judges.

SCHWAB, C. J.

The defendant Mason was convicted of violating ORS 167.210 (contributing to the delinquency of a *145minor) and appealed on grounds not now necessary to consider. After lie filed his notice of appeal, the Supreme Court, in *State v. Hodges,*254 Or 21, 457 P2d 491 (1969), handed down July 24, 1969, held ORS 167.210 unconstitutional “on its face.” Belying upon *State v. Hodges,*supra, the defendant moves for an order remanding the cause to the trial court.

The state resists this motion upon the ground that the information charging Mason with “contributing to the delinquency of a minor” was so detañed as to the acts committed by Mason that it met the prerequisites for constitutionality set out in *State v. Casson,*223 Or 421, 354 P2d 815 (1960). *Casson*held that the catch-all phrase of the statute could be constitutionally applied only if the acts described in the indictment were of such character that the court could hold, as a matter of law, that such conduct would, if unchecked, produce delinquency in a victim.

The state construes *State v. Hodges,*supra, as approving rather than overruling the *Casson*doctrine. The contrary is true. *Hodges*discusses *State v. Casson,*supra, as an attempt to “save” ORS 167.210 then goes on to hold that it cannot be saved when considered in the specific context of the assertion that it is unconstitutional “on its face.” The *Hodges*case holds that regardless of what a person is told after he is charged with crime, a law fails to meet the requirements of the due process clause:

> * * ‘if it is so vague and standardless that it leaves the public uncertain as to the conduct it prohibits or leaves judges and jurors free to decide, without any legañy fixed standards, what is prohibited and what is not in each particular case. See, *e.g., Lanzetta v. New Jersey,*306 U. S. 451; *Baggett v. Bullitt,*377 U. S. 360 * * *146*.' Giaccio v. Pennsylvania, 382 US 399, 86 S Ct 518, 15 L Ed 2d 447 (1966).” *State v. Hodges,*supra, at 25.

*Hodges*held that the pertinent language of OES 167.210 does not meet this test. No matter how detailed the information in this ease, it cannot support a conviction under an unconstitutional statute. This cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to discharge the defendant in this proceeding and for reference to the grand jury in the event that the prosecution deems it proper to proceed under another statute.

Motion allowed. Eeversed and remanded with directions.
### RESOLUTION NO. 3811

A RESOLUTIONREQUESTING THE**SECRETAR;);'. q~"**  1 e> 

## 2**~}** 

### TRANSPORTATION TO DELAY SUSPENSION OF**ESSENft.AT;·~** 

### AIRSERVICE TO LEWISTOWN 

### WHEREAS, the City ofLewistown has been served with an Order to Show Cause Proposing Termination ofEssential 

### Air Service (EAS) Eligibility bythe U.S. Department ofTransportation ; and, 

### WHEREAS, the stated reason for proposed termination ofBAS·is that the average subsidy per passenger for BAS in Lewistown during the most recent fiscal year exceeds the maximum allowed amount of$1,000.00/passenger. 

### WHEREAS, the subsidy received by an BAS provider is directly related to the number of persons who utiliZe the service; as ridership decreases, the subsidy must increase. It is the City's belief that ridership. on the local BAS provider has deteriorated due to poor route selection, undependable service and utilization of aircraft that are not equippe,d to take advantage ofthe Lewistown Airport's low visibility landing system. : 

### WHEREAS, the City desires· to be included in the upcoming Request for Proposal for BAS which would include a route from Lewistown to Denver and a requirement that bidding air providers have aircraft equipped to take advantage ofLewistown's low visibility landing system. 

### WHEREAS, the Lewistown CityManager has drafted a letter to the Secretary ofTransportation dated Aprilll, 

### 2013, detailing the need for BAS in Central Montana along withthe reasons why such service canbe provided withinthe subsidy ranges authorizedbythe Department. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Lewistown City Commission urgently requests that the Secretary suspend proceedings on the proposed termination ofBAS eligibility for a period sufficient to allow Lewistown to obtain proposals from air carriers that would not only meet the needs ofLewistown and Central Montana residents, but also increase ridership on the BAS provider·that will correspondingly reduce the subsidy to within the limits set by the Department.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Commission fully supports the letter drafted by the Lewistown City Manager and adopts the same tobe includedhereinbyreference.
PASSEDAND APPROVED THIS 

### 15th day ofApril, 

### 2013.

FRANK GREMAUX, Chairman ofthe Commission
July 19 , 201 5 U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Operations, M

- 30 West Building ground floor Room W12

- 140 1200 New Jersey

Avenue, SE. Washington, DC 20590 Re: Petition for Extension o f Exemption: Exemption No. 6002J , FAA Docket No. 2002

- 12804 Dear Sir or Madam: On December 16, 1994, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) granted Exemption No. 6002 to Helicopter Association I nternational (HAI) and the Association of Air Medical Services (AAMS) (hereinafter, the “Petitioners”). T his exemption, from §43.3(a) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR), was granted “to the extent necessary to allow pilots employ ed by member operators of the petitioners, not permitted under §43.3(g) to perform preventative maintenance, to remove and re install LOX [L iquid Ox ygen System] containers in their aircraft, after receiving and documenting appropriate training in this task by

a properl y certificated airframe mechanic,” subject to certain conditions and limitations stated therein. Since the firs t Exemption No. 6002 was granted, it has been extended every two y ears. The lates t extension, Exemption No. 6002J will expire, by it s own terms, on January 31, 2016

. The conditions and circumstances pursuant to which Exemption No. 6002 was originally granted remain unchanged. Experience with Exemption No. 6002 demonstrates that the public interest is served and a level of safet y equivalent to regulation is maintained when properl y trained air medical service pilots are permitted to remove and reinstall L OX containers in their aircraft. Pursuant to FAR §11.87, good cause exists to waive publication of this petition for extension of exemption in the Federal Register, because the extension, if granted, would not set a precedent, and an y dela y in acting on this petition would be a detriment to the Petitioners and the public.Exemption No. 6002 remains vital to the public interest despite the addition to the federal

aviation regulations of subsection 14 CFR § 43.3(i), which authorizes properly trained pilots of certain aircraft operated pursuant to 14 CFR part 135 to remove and reinstall “approved cabin

- mounted medical oxy gen bottles” only “when no tools are required.” Exemption 6002 authorizes trained air medical aircraft pilots “to remove and reinstall LOX containers in their aircraft” using simple hand tools when “no special tools are required to perform the container exchange,” subject to the conditions stated therein. Therefore, HAI and AAMS petition the Administrator to extend Exemption No. 6002 for an additional two

- year term, or for such longer term as the Administrator may deem appropriate. The Petitioners further ask the Administrator to find good cause exists to waive publication. Sincerel y,

Matthew S. Zuccaro President cc: Mr. Rick Sherlo ck, CEO, AAMS
# C_2022463EN.01004801.xml

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/48

---

Order of the General Court of 19 September 2022 — TDK Foil Italy v Commission

(Case T-788/21) (1)

(Action for annulment - Commercial policy - Dumping - Imports of aluminium flat-rolled products originating in China - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Independent importer - No individual concern - Inadmissibility)

(2022/C 463/69)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: TDK Foil Italy SpA (Rozzano, Italy) (represented by: F. Di Gianni, A. Scalini and G. Pregno, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Luengo and M. Gustafsson, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1784 of 8 October 2021 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of aluminium flat-rolled products originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2021 L 359, p. 6), in so far as that regulation includes raw aluminium foil used to produce high-voltage anode and tab foils for aluminium electrolytic capacitors within the scope of the anti-dumping duty.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | TDK Foil Italy SpA shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

TDK Foil Italy SpA shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 84, 21.2.2022.

---
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 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 Day International Group, Inc.
(the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, Thomas J. Koenig, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to my knowledge: (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 position and results of operations of the
Company. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or
other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be
retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request. /s/ Thomas J. KoenigThomas J. KoenigChief Financial OfficerNovember 1, 2004
#### Lois Fischman, Respondent, v Stuart Fischman, Appellant.

[655 NYS2d 986]

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Shapiro, J.), entered January 10, 1996, as granted that branch of the plaintiff wife’s motion which was for interim counsel fees.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in awarding the plaintiff wife $15,000 in interim counsel fees *(see, DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete,*70 NY2d 879; *Ferdinand v Ferdinand,*215 AD2d 350; Domestic Relations Law § 237 [a]).

We have considered the defendant husband’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 89 (Tuesday, May 8, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 27110]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-11092]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 7818]

Overseas Security Advisory Council (OSAC) Meeting Notice; Closed 
Meeting

    The Department of State announces a meeting of the U.S. State 
Department--Overseas Security Advisory Council on June 5 and 6, 2012. 
Pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 
U.S.C. Appendix), 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4), and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(7)(E), it 
has been determined that the meeting will be closed to the public. The 
meeting will focus on an examination of corporate security policies and 
procedures and will involve extensive discussion of trade secrets and 
proprietary commercial information that is privileged and confidential, 
and will discuss law enforcement investigative techniques and 
procedures. The agenda will include updated committee reports, a global 
threat overview, and other matters relating to private sector security 
policies and protective programs and the protection of U.S. business 
information overseas.
    For more information, contact Marsha Thurman, Overseas Security 
Advisory Council, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC 20522-2008, 
phone: 571-345-2214.

    Dated: April 17, 2012.
Scott P. Bultrowicz,
Director of the Diplomatic Security Service, U.S. Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2012-11092 Filed 5-7-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-43-P
```
#### Roy Kenneth FINNEY v. STATE.

No. 35585.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 220 So.2d 673.
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 7, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-50960

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JUAN ANTONIO ALONZO-MENDOZA,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas 

USDC No. 3:06-CR-552

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

Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Juan Antonio

Alonzo-Mendoza raises arguments that are foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998),

which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and

not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for

summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district

court is AFFIRMED.
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1027 

To improve, coordinate, and enhance rehabilitation research at the National 

Institutes of Health. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 22, 2013 

Mr. KIRK (for himself and Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 

Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To improve, coordinate, and enhance rehabilitation research 

at the National Institutes of Health. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. IMPROVING REHABILITATION RESEARCH AT 

4 NIH. 

5 Section 452 of the Public Health Service Act (42 

6 U.S.C. 285g–4) is amended— 

7 (1) in the section heading by striking ‘‘MED8 ICAL’’; 

9 (2) in subsection (a), by striking ‘‘Medical’’; 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1027 IS

1 (3) in subsection (c)(1)(C), by striking ‘‘of the 

2 National’’ and inserting ‘‘within the National’’; 

3 (4) in subsection (d)(4), by inserting ‘‘, or at 

4 least every 5 years,’’ after ‘‘periodically,’’; and 

5 (5) by adding at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘(g) The Secretary may establish a working group 

7 made up of representatives from various Institutes and 

8 Centers, as appropriate, within the National Institutes of 

9 Health to update and streamline rehabilitation research 

10 priorities at the National Institutes of Health. 

11 ‘‘(h) The Secretary may enter into inter-agency 

12 agreements relating to the coordination of rehabilitation 

13 research conducted by agencies outside of the Department 

14 of Health and Human Services. 

15 ‘‘(i) For purposes of this section, the term ‘rehabilita16 tion’ means the science of mechanisms and interventions 

17 that prevent, improve, restore or replace lost, under18 developed, or deteriorating function (defined at the level 

19 of impairment, activity, and participation according to the 

20 WHO–ICF Model).’’. 

21 SEC. 2. REPORT ON IMPLEMENTATION OF REHABILITA22 TION RESEARCH RECOMMENDATIONS. 

23 Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment 

24 of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services 

25 shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1027 IS

1 a report concerning the feasibility of implementing the 

2 changes proposed in the Blue Ribbon Panel Recommenda3 tions on Rehabilitation Research. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS