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



<ARTICLE>                                           7
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUL-01-2000
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                           18,256
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                          0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                            0
<EQUITIES>                                     775
<MORTGAGE>                                     0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                  0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 20,188
<CASH>                                         654
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                             6,829
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                         1,574
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 38,134
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                22,892
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                            2,565
<POLICY-OTHER>                                 0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                          2,263
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                1,653
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    150
<COMMON>                                       5
<OTHER-SE>                                     5,406
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   38,134
<PREMIUMS>                                     3,663
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                            616
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                             346
<OTHER-INCOME>                                 182
<BENEFITS>                                     3,061
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                    940
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                           385
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                377
<INCOME-TAX>                                   78
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            299
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   299
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                 0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                            0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                              0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                             0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                               0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                        0



</TABLE>
UNITED STATES
                        SECURITY AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             Washington, D.C. 20549


                                   FORM 10-QSB Amended
                                January 15, 1998


                      For the quarter ended: SEPTEMBER 30, 1997

                         Commission file number: 0-26322


                                    IAC, Inc.


                              a Nevada corporation
                              IRS Number 88-0303769


                  714 "C" Street, San Rafael, California 94901

                                                      (800) 554-1250






Check whether issuer (1) filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or
15(d) of the Exchange Act during the past 12 months (or for such shorter  period
that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject
to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes _X__ No __





                      APPLICABLE ONLY TO CORPORATE ISSUERS

State the number of shares outstanding of each of the issuer's classes of common
equity, as of the latest practicable date:
4,272,578 shares.

Transitional Small Business Disclosure Format (Check one):    Yes ___     No _X_


<PAGE>


/S/   Jeff Ferries, President

January 15, 1998
United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 07-1931

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellee,

v.

RODRIGO CAMPUSANO,

Defendant, Appellant.

____________________

No. 07-2442

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellee,

v.

JAIME PINILLOS,

Defendant, Appellant.

ERRATA

The opinion of this Court, issued on February 13, 2009, should

be amended as follows.

On page 5, lines 18-21 change sentence: "Based on . . . one

hundred kilos;" to read as follows: "Based on the combined testimony

of Rafa, Toro and Pinillos, the district judge could reasonably find

that the intended transaction was for one hundred kilos;".

On page 6, line 3, following "delivery" add sentence: "Indeed,

Pinillos himself conceded on the stand that he was hoping to

consummate a transaction for one hundred 'computers.'" 

On page 8, line 23, add the word "initial" following the word

"smaller".
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE RESTATED
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF HARBINGER CORPORATION FOR THE QUARTER ENDED
MAR-31-97 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH CONSOLIDATED 
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. ALL AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN RETROACTIVELY RESTATED TO REFLECT A
THREE-FOR-TWO STOCK SPLIT IN THE FORM OF A STOCK DIVIDEND PAYABLE ON MAY-15-98.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          62,263
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   24,703
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,037
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                92,651
<PP&E>                                          28,927
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,631
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 129,302
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           38,505
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             4
<OTHER-SE>                                      87,617
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   129,302
<SALES>                                          9,570
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                24,320
<CGS>                                            1,846
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,682
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                32,549
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  69
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (14,316)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (335)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (13,981)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      47
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 (2,419)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (16,353)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.45)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.45)
        

</TABLE>
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 77**  **50**

WALTER COLUMBUS SIMMONS , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.

HUGH CHATHAM HOSPITAL; FORSYTH HOSPITAL , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Nor th Carolina , at Greensboro

. William L. Osteen, Jr. , Chief District Judge. ( 1 :13

- cv
- 0 0677

- WO

- JLW )

Submitted : January 21, 2014 Decided: January 24, 2014

Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Affirm ed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Walter Columbus Simmons , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Walter Columbus Simmons appeals the district court ’ s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (200 6 ) complaint under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(b) (2012 ). We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court. Simmons v. Hugh Chatham Hosp. , No. 1:13

-

cv
- 00677

- WO

- JLW (M.D.N.C. Oct. 22, 2013) . We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before th is court and argument would

n ot aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
[No. 1158-1.

Division One—Panel 1.

December 6, 1971.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Eddie Wayne Todd, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 46728, Story Birdseye, J., entered May 18, 1971. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion pursuant to RCW 2.06.040.
#### Willie B. HALL and Cora D. Hall, Appellants, v. UNIVERSAL DRY WALL, INC., and Travelers Insurance Company, Appellees.

No. 77-846.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 23, 1978.

Abramson, Scremin, Mendigutia & Lib-man and Sidney Z. Brodie, Miami, for appellants.

Adams, George, Schulte & Ward and Amy Shield Levine, Miami, for appellees.

Before HAVERFIELD, C. J., HUB-BART, J., and PARKER, J. GWYNN, (Ret.), Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Willie B. Hall and his wife, Cora D. Hall, take this interlocutory appeal from an order dismissing their complaint with prejudice as to the appellees, Universal Dry Wall, Inc. and Travelers Insurance Company.

The appellants filed this lawsuit alleging that Mr. Hall was seriously injured while riding as a passenger in a pick up truck owned by Universal Dry Wall and insured by Travelers. At the time of the accident, although Mr. Hall apparently was employed by Universal Dry Wall and engaged in duties within the course and scope of his employment, there are no allegations in the complaint so alleging.

In their complaint, the Halls sought damages against the appellees for injuries arising out of the accident. Dade County was also made a defendant below but is not a party to this appeal.

The appellees moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that Mr. Hall was an employee of Universal Dry Wall at the time of the accident and has received and accepted workmen’s compensation benefits from his employer and therefore the appellees were legally immune from the claims brought against them in this lawsuit. The trial court agreed and dismissed the com-| *1171plaint with prejudice as to the appellees. This interlocutory appeal followed.

We reverse on the authority of *Preston v. Grant Advertising, Inc.,*166 So.2d 219, 222 (Fla.3d DCA 1964) where we stated:

> “The allegation of the defendant as to the Workmen’s Compensation Law is a matter of defense and not properly the subject of a motion to dismiss. See *Southeastern Title and Insurance Company v. Curtis,*Fla.App.1963, 155 So.2d 855.-."

The appellees’ assertion that they are immune from suit as a result of their payment of workmen’s compensation benefits to the appellant is not a proper ground for a motion to dismiss. Nor have any recent amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure abrogated or modified the law on this point.

The trial court erred by dismissing the appellants’ complaint with prejudice. This cause is remanded with directions to reinstate the complaint.

Reversed and remanded.
#### NATIONAL BANK OF BOSSIER CITY v. Rodney FORNEA et al.

No. 53238.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Mar. 1, 1973.

In re: The National Bank of Bossier City applying for Certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Bossier. 272 So.2d 411.

Writ denied. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal there is no error of law in the judgment.

HAMLIN, C. J., and SANDERS and SUMMERS, JJ., are of the opinion that the application should be granted.
H. Res. 717 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

September 10, 2014. 

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall 

be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3522) to 

authorize health insurance issuers to continue to offer for 

sale current group health insurance coverage in satisfaction 

of the minimum essential health insurance coverage requirement, and for other purposes. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. An amendment in the nature 

of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee 

Print 113–56, modified by the amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, 

shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be 

considered as read. All points of order against provisions in 

the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall 

be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any 

further amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided 

and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of 
2 

•HRES 717 EH 

the Committee on Energy and Commerce; and (2) one motion 

to recommit with or without instructions. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
#### Kathryn KATCHELMYER v. John AMES et al.

No. 62844.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 22, 1978.

In re: The Travelers Indemnity Company, applying for certiorari, or writ of re*796view, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit. Parish of Ascension.

Writ denied.
#### Bethany Ann KELLER, by and through her natural parent and next friend, Virginia F. Compton, and Virginia F. Compton, Appellants, v. EAGLE ARMY-NAVY DEPARTMENT STORES, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 71-241.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 19, 1971.

As Clarified Jan. 18, 1972.

Larry A. Klein and J. Luther Drew, West Palm Beach, for appellants.

Lake Lytal, Jr., of Howell, Kirby, Montgomery, D’Aiuto, Dean *&*Hallowes, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the trial court judgment which dismissed what was in fact the fourth complaint filed by the plaintiff. While we agree that the complaint was in-artful, far from being a model, and certainly borderline as to legal sufficiency, we feel from our review of the cases and criteria contained therein 1 that the complaint was at least adequate at this stage to state a cause of action in breach of warranty. The action was brought against a retailer by an injured person not in privity, based upon the notion that the injury was caused by a dangerous instrumentality.2

We specifically do not here determine whether or not the exploding patio torch in question was a dangerous instrumentality. We only hold that the trial court decision as to this concern was premature and that *249such determination, at least in this uncertain instance, should be made only after plaintiff has had an opportunity to adduce evidence as to the construction and dangers of this particular device.

Reversed and remanded.

REED, C. J., and WALDEN and MA-GER, JJ., concur.

PER CURIAM.

UPON MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION

This motion being well founded, we supplement our opinion which was filed on November 19, 1971, by saying that appellants’ complaint stated a cause of action in each of its four counts.

REED, C. J., and WALDEN and MA-GER, JJ., concur.

1

. Recent cases have held all a complaint need do is to acquaint defendant with the charges so that he may intelligently answer same. Cohn v. Florida-Georgia Television Company, Inc., Fla.App.1969, 218 So.2d 787, and Fontainbleau Hotel Corp. v. Walters, Fla.1971, 246 So.2d 563. See also Pizzi v. Central Bank and Trust Company, Fla.1971, 250 So.2d 895, where the test used to determine sufficiency of the complaint was “if the factual allegations of the complaint are established * * *, plaintiff will be * * * entitled to the claimed relief against the defendant.”

2

. Toombs v. Fort Pierce Gas Company, Fla.1968, 208 So.2d 615.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1039 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1039

  To amend title 38, United States Code, to expand the Marine Gunnery 
 Sergeant John David Fry scholarship to include spouses of members of 
 the Armed Forces who die in the line of duty, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 23, 2013

Mr. Merkley (for himself and Mr. Heller) introduced the following bill; 
which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 38, United States Code, to expand the Marine Gunnery 
 Sergeant John David Fry scholarship to include spouses of members of 
 the Armed Forces who die in the line of duty, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Spouses of Heroes Education Act''.

SEC. 2. EXPANSION OF MARINE GUNNERY SERGEANT JOHN DAVID FRY 
              SCHOLARSHIP.

    (a) Expansion of Entitlement.--Subsection (b)(9) of section 3311 of 
title 38, United States Code, is amended by inserting ``or spouse'' 
after ``child''.
    (b) Limitation and Election on Certain Benefits.--Subsection (f) of 
such section is amended--
            (1) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (4); and
            (2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new 
        paragraphs:
            ``(2) Limitation.--The entitlement of an individual to 
        assistance under subsection (a) pursuant to paragraph (9) of 
        subsection (b) because the individual was a spouse of a person 
        described in such paragraph shall expire on the earlier of--
                    ``(A) the date that is 15 years after the date on 
                which the person died; and
                    ``(B) the date on which the individual remarries.
            ``(3) Election on receipt of certain benefits.--A surviving 
        spouse entitled to assistance under subsection (a) pursuant to 
        paragraph (9) of subsection (b) who is also entitled to 
        educational assistance under chapter 35 of this title may not 
        receive assistance under both this section and such chapter, 
        but shall make an irrevocable election (in such form and manner 
        as the Secretary may prescribe) under which section or chapter 
        to receive educational assistance.''.
    (c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 3321(b)(4) of such title is 
amended by striking ``an individual'' and inserting ``a child''.
    (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall take 
effect on the date that is 90 days after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2022418EN.01003401.xml

| 31.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — Peace United v EUIPO — 1906 Collins (bâoli)

(Case T-754/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark bâoli - Declaration of revocation - Absence of genuine use of the mark - Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Proof of genuine use - Abuse of rights)

(2022/C 418/46)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Peace United Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Artzimovitch, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: 1906 Collins LLC (Miami, Florida, United States) (represented by: C. Mateu, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 14 September 2021 (Case R 275/2020-2).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Peace United Ltd to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Peace United Ltd to bear the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 51, 31.1.2022.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 122 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 114

103d CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                 S. 122

                          [Report No. 103-73]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

   To authorize a certificate of documentation for the vessel Kalena.

_______________________________________________________________________

                June 29 (legislative day, June 22), 1993

                       Reported with an amendment

                                                       Calendar No. 114
103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 122

                          [Report No. 103-73]

   To authorize a certificate of documentation for the vessel Kalena.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             January 21 (legislative day, January 5), 1993

  Mr. Inouye introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

                June 29 (legislative day, June 22), 1993

              Reported by Mr. Hollings, with an amendment
  [Omit the part struck through and insert the part printed in italic]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To authorize a certificate of documentation for the vessel Kalena.

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

SECTION 1. DOCUMENTATION.

    Notwithstanding sections 12106, 12107, and 12108 of title 46, 
United States Code, and section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 
App. U.S.C. 883), as applicable on the date of enactment of this Act, 
the Secretary of Transportation may issue a certificate of 
documentation for the vessel Kalena, -U-n-i-t-e-d -S-t-a-t-e-s 
-o-f-f-i-c-i-a-l -n-u-m-b-e-r -H-A---1-9-2-3-E-. State of Hawaii 
registration number HA 1923 E.
```