alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES
                               
              SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                               
                     WASHINGTON, DC 20549
                               
                          FORM 10-Q/A
                               
                               
(Mark One)
       X   QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15 (d)
OF
              THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
               For the quarterly period ended March 31, 1997
           TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15 (d)
               OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
          For the transition from

                   to Commission File No.

                   027222

                     CFC INTERNATIONAL, INC.

          (Exact name of Registrant as specified in its
          charter) DELAWARE
          36-3434526
     (State or other jurisdiction of              (I.R.S.
Employer
      incorporation or organization)
Identification No.)

      500 State Street, Chicago Heights, Illinois   60411
                               
     Registrants telephone number, including
     area code:                              (708) 891-3456



Indicated by check mark whether the Registrant (1) has filed
all reports  required  to be filed by Section 13 or  15  (d)
of  the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding
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  (     )

As  of  April 30, 1997, the Registrant had issued and

outstanding 3,985,330  shares of Common Stock, par value $.01

per share,  and 534,030 shares of Class B Common Stock, par

value $.01 per share.







                          SIGNATURES

                               

                               

  Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act
  of 1934,  the registrant has duly caused this report to be
  signed on  its  behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly
  authorized, on May 1, 1997.
  
  

                                CFC INTERNATIONAL, INC.
                                Dennis W. Lakomy
                                    Vice    President,    Chief
Financial Officer,
                                Secretary, and Treasurer
                                (Principal Financial Officer)
                                
                                
                                
                                
                                 /s/
                                Jeffrey E. Norby
                                Controller
                                (Principal Accounting Officer)
# C_2013248EN.01000102.xml

| 29.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 248/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 248/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6999 — SPIE/HSS)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2013/C 248/02

On 22 August 2013, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32013M6999. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32013M6999. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
#### Rommie L. LOUDD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-1722.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 28, 1978.

Ellis S. Rubin of Ellis Rubin Law Office, Miami, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Glenn H. Mitchell, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

DOWNEY, Judge.

Appellant was charged in the Circuit Court of Orange County with having committed a felony on February 24, 1975, and he was adjudicated' guilty on December 23, *12981975. Subsequently, appellant was adjudicated guilty of a felony in the United States District Court in Massachusetts. That felony was committed on February 4, 1975.

Appellant applied to the Circuit Court of Orange County for bail pending the appeal of his December 23, 1975, conviction. The trial court felt it had no discretion to grant bail in view of Section 903.132(1), Florida Statutes (1976), and Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.691(a). Appellant now seeks review of that order.

Section 903.132(1) provides:

> “(1) No person may be admitted to bail upon appeal from a conviction of a felony unless the defendant establishes that the appeal is taken in good faith, on grounds fairly debatable, and not frivolous. However, in no case shall bail be granted if such person has previously been convicted of a felony, the commission of which occurred prior to the commission of the subsequent felony, and such person’s civil rights have not been restored or if other felony charges are pending against him and probable cause has been found that the person has committed the felony or felonies at the time the request for bail is made.”

The pertinent part of the rule is to the same effect.

Both the statute and the rule provide that if a defendant applying for bail pending appeal has been convicted of a felony prior to such petition for bail and that felony was committed prior to the felony the conviction of which he is appealing, he shall be denied bail.

The facts in the case at bar are that appellant at the time he applied for bail pending appeal on July 1, 1977, had previously been convicted of a felony in Federal Court in Massachusetts and that felony was committed prior to the felony the conviction of which appellant is presently appealing. Accordingly the trial court correctly denied appellant’s petition for bail because both the statute and the rule specifically provide that bail shall not be granted in this fact situation.

The order appealed from is affirmed.

ANSTEAD and LETTS, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                             642
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,466
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,219
<PP&E>                                           1,809
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,546
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   2,938
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              776
<BONDS>                                             18
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        13,319
<OTHER-SE>                                    (11,175)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     2,144
<SALES>                                            697
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   697
<CGS>                                              487
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,971
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (91)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,183)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,183)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,183)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.51)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Rufus HENRY.

No. 61415.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 20, 1978.

In re: Rufus Henry, applying for writ of review. Parish of St. Mary.

Writ denied.

DIXON, CALOGERO and DENNIS, JJ., would grant the writ.
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

I, Richard P. Dutkiewicz, as
Chief Financial Officer of Einstein Noah Restaurant Group, Inc. (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 Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|                   |  |  |  |     |  |                           |  |                        
|------------------ |  |  |  | --- |  | ------------------------- |  | -----------------------
|                   |  |  | 
|Dated: May 7, 2009 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Richard P. Dutkiewicz
|                   |  |  |  |     |  |                           |  | Richard P. Dutkiewicz  
|                   |  |  |  |     |  |                           |  | Chief Financial Officer
No. 11804.

#### Brown, Mayor, *v.*The State, ex rel. Lauer.

Decided January 25, 1910.

Error to Circuit Court of Richland county.

*Mr. L. D. Barr*and *Messrs. Cummings, McBride & Wolfe,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. T. R. Robison,*for defendant in error.

Judgment reversed and petition dismissed. Grounds stated in journal entry.

It is ordered and adjudged by this court, that the judgment of the said circuit court be, and the same hereby is, reversed and the petition is dismissed. The mayor was without original jurisdiction to remove Lauer *(The State, ex rel. Mayor,*v. *Baldwin, 77*Ohio St., 532), but upon the undisputed evidence Lauer had not taken the examination for station house keeper and was, therefore, ineligible to appointment, and the order for his reinstatement should have been refused and the petition'dismissed *(Holbrock*v. *Smedley, 79*Ohio St., 391).

Summers, C. J., Crew, Davis, Shauck and Price, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2935 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2935

   To provide for the designation and operation of the Silas B. Hays 
Community Hospital at Fort Ord, California as a satellite facility of a 
                 uniformed services treatment facility.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             August 6, 1993

    Mr. Farr of California introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To provide for the designation and operation of the Silas B. Hays 
Community Hospital at Fort Ord, California as a satellite facility of a 
                 uniformed services treatment facility.

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

SECTION 1. CONVERSION OF SILAS B. HAYS COMMUNITY HOSPITAL AT FORT ORD, 
              CALIFORNIA TO A SATELLITE FACILITY OF A UNIFORMED 
              SERVICES TREATMENT FACILITY.

    (a) Negotiations for Operations of Hospital.--The Secretary of 
Defense shall enter into negotiations with a uniformed services 
treatment facility described in section 911(a) of the Military 
Construction Authorization Act, 1982 (42 U.S.C. 248c(a)), for the 
purpose of arranging for the facility to assume operation of the Silas 
B. Hays Army Community Hospital at Ford Ord, California, in a manner 
consistent with the managed-care delivery and reimbursement model 
required under section 718(c) of the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 1991 (Public Law 101-510; 104 Stat. 1587).
    (b) Treatment as USTF Satellite Facility.--Upon completion of the 
negotiations under subsection (a), the Secretary of Defense shall--
            (1) consider the hospital to be a satellite facility of the 
        uniformed services treatment facility, as described in section 
        721(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
        Years 1992 and 1993 (Public Law 102-190; 105 Stat. 1405); and
            (2) designate the hospital as a facility of the uniformed 
        services for the purposes of chapter 55 of title 10, United 
        States Code.
    (c) Completion of Negotiations.--The Secretary shall complete the 
negotiations under subsection (a) and make the designation under 
subsection (b)(2) not later than September 30, 1994.

                                 <all>
```
#### Joseph R. OTT and Stella C. Ott, his wife, Appellants, v. Omar E. STANG, Appellee.

No. 67-460.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Oct. 17, 1967.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 31, 1967.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
**MEMORANDUM**

DATE: July

30, 2015 TO: Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket I d: OAR

– 2013
- 0602 FROM: EPA Region 1 SUBJECT: April 23, 2015, Presentation on the Proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing

Power Plants at Northeast Gas Association’s Regional Market Trends Forum
**SUMMARY** On April 30, 2015, Regional Administrator Curt Spalding presented on the Clean Power Plan during the Northeast Gas Association’s Regional Market Trends Forum. **ATTENDEES** Curt Spalding, EPA John Moskal, EPA Approximately 200 people attended this conference. Attendance was not taken by EPA Slides are attached.
#### Kenneth O. ADAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. R-266.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Feb. 22, 1973.

James Ron Shelley, Public Defender; and William K. Jennings, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Michael M. Corin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on authority of McPherson v. State, 237 So.2d 18 (Fla.App.1st, 1970).

SPECTOR, C. J., and WIGGTNTON and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
# m3-outp-nop
#### FIDELITY STORAGE & TRANSFER COMPANY, INC., and Continental Casualty Company, Appellants, v. Clement CARRANZA, as husband of Geneva Carranza, and George William Walrath, et al., Appellees. FIDELITY STORAGE & TRANSFER COMPANY, INC., and Continental Casualty Company, Appellants, v. Clement CARRANZA, as Administrator of Estate of Geneva H. Carranza, and George William Walrath, et al., Appellees. FIDELITY STORAGE & TRANSFER COMPANY, INC., and Continental Casualty Company, Appellants, v. Nathan E. HARRIS et ux. and George William Walrath, et al., Appellees.

Nos. 72-274, 72-275 and 72-276.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 25, 1973.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Orange County; Parker Lee McDonald, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

					NOS. 2-07-058-CR

						2-07-059-CR

JEROME M. HAMILTON					       		APPELLANT

	V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS	STATE

	----------

	FROM THE 396TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

	----------

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

						----------

	We have considered appellant’s “Motions To Dismiss Appeal.”  The motions comply with rule 42.2(a) of the rules of appellate procedure.  Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a).  No decision of this court having been delivered before we received the motions, we grant the motions and dismiss the appeals.  See  Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a), 43.2(f). 							 										PER CURIAM

PANEL F:	GARDNER, J.; CAYCE, C.J.; and LIVINGSTON, J.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: April 3, 2008
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-28-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-01-1998
<CASH>                                       1,064,657
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,064,657
<PP&E>                                         732,502
<DEPRECIATION>                                  65,810
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,961,349
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,036,708
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    560,005
<COMMON>                                        39,461
<OTHER-SE>                                     325,175
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,961,349
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               306,399
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (306,399)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (306,399)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (306,399)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.27)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
An official website of the United States government                

----

end of header

Census.govNewsroomReleases2010 CensusMiscellaneous

# Newsroom Archive

Skip left menu navigation                          - About the Newsroom
                          - Facts for Features
                          - **News Releases**
                          - Press Kits
                          - Tip Sheets

### Release Information

**CB07-CN.08(B)**
**Contact:**  Mark Tolbert IIIPublic Information Office(301) 763-3030 (phone)(301) 763-3762 (fax)(301) 457-1037 (TDD)

## FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:  SATURDAY, AUGUST 18, 2007

## Census Issues Clarification on 2010 Census and Law Enforcement

      WASHINGTON – August 18, 2007 – Census     Bureau Director Louis Kincannon today issued the following statement:

      “Recent news articles have contained     some inaccurate information regarding the 2010 Census. I would like to set     the record straight.”

      “First, it is premature for Census to     definitively state what our full coordination efforts will be for the 2010     Census, particularly involving law enforcement agencies.”

      “The Census Bureau has not requested     that the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency refrain from enforcing     immigration laws. While previous Administrations sought to have law enforcement     raids curtailed somewhat to help obtain greater accuracy, we respect ICE's     statement that they will not suspend raids even if a decision were made to     ask them to do so. The Census Bureau fully recognizes that times have changed,     with new challenges facing immigration authorities, and Census will change     with those times.”

      “For the Census Bureau to be successful     in getting an accurate count of all residents (as mandated by Article I, Section     2, of the Constitution), the Census Bureau will rely heavily on trusted individuals     and organizations within hard to count populations to partner with us to increase     public awareness that it’s important and safe to participate in the     2010 Census.”

      “The Census Bureau will complete its mission     to count everyone and regrets any misimpression we left.”

CONNECT WITH US**********

                            - Information Quality
                            - Data Linkage Infrastructure
                            - Data Protection and Privacy Policy
                            - Accessibility
                            - FOIA
                            - Inspector General
                            - No FEAR Act
                            - U.S. Department of Commerce
                            - USA.gov

----

Measuring America's People, Places, and Economy

Is this page helpful?
YesNo

NO THANKS

255 characters maximum255 characters maximum reached

Thank you for your feedback.Comments or suggestions? 

PIO@census.gov
260 La. 125

#### Hilbert P. NERO and Loule Carriere Nero v. IDECO and Southern Natural Gas Company et al.

No. 51911.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 7, 1971.

In re: Hilbert P. Nero and Loule Carriere Nero applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Vermilion. 255 So.2d 128.

Writ denied. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal we find no error of law in the judgment complained of.
# C_2013160EN.01000101.xml

| 6.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 160/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 160/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6896 — Spar/Allianz/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2013/C 160/01

On 28 May 2013, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in German and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32013M6896. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32013M6896. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---