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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 7
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Statement of Income and the Consolidated balance sheet found on
pages 1 and 3 of the Company's form 10-Q for the year to date (in millions) and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000745544
<NAME> SUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA (U.S.)
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                             2,861
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                           0
<MORTGAGE>                                         893
<REAL-ESTATE>                                       97
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                   4,024
<CASH>                                             309
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                                   0
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                             734
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  22,575
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                    724
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                                  6
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                            2,979
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                    565
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             6
<OTHER-SE>                                         681
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    22,575
<PREMIUMS>                                          25
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                                158
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                 (3)
<OTHER-INCOME>                                     144
<BENEFITS>                                         160
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                         40
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                                67
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     36
<INCOME-TAX>                                        11
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 24
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        24
<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>
#### Ronald C. STIRLING and Colleen Finney Stirling, his wife, Appellants, v. James W. SAPP and Sandra Ash Sapp, his wife, Appellees.

No. 69-643.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Aug. 26, 1970.

George A. Routh, and Carleton L. Weidemeyer, of Wightman, Rowe & Weidemeyer, Clearwater, for appellants.

Kaleel, Kaleel & Kaleel, St. Petersburg, for appellees.

LILES, Acting Chief Judge.

This was an automobile negligence action tried by jury who found for appellants here. The case was originally appealed to this court at 209 So.2d 251. The Supreme Court of Florida at 229 So.2d 850 quashed this court’s opinion and remanded the cause with instructions to reinstate the verdict for plaintiff-appellants. The supreme court said:

> “For the reasons stated the decision of the District Court of Appeal is quashed and the cause is remanded with instructions that the cause be further remanded to the Circuit court with instructions that the verdict and final judgment for plaintiffs be reinstated.”

Thereafter, appellees filed their petition for rehearing claiming that the opinion should be revised and remanded for hearing and ruling on their alternative motion for a new trial. This petition was denied by the supreme court and this court issued its mandate, saying:

> “WHEREAS, the Mandate of the Supreme Court of Florida has now been lodged in this Court, it is therefore

> “ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the judgment of this Court of April 5, 1968, is vacated and the opinion of the Supreme Court of Florida is herewith adopted and made the opinion and judgment of this Court and in accordance therewith the cause is remanded to the Circuit Court of Pinellas County, Florida, with directions that the verdict of the jury and final judgments for the Plaintiffs be reinstated.”

Upon receipt of the mandate the trial judge, instead of reinstating plaintiffs’ verdict as directed, granted appellees’ motion for a new trial and this appeal followed.

The question here is whether or not the trial court had the authority to grant the motion for a new trial or was he required to reinstate the plaintiffs’ verdict as di*698rected by the supreme court’s and this court’s mandates.

We believe the trial court erred in granting appellees’ motion for a new trial and the only thing he could do was to reinstate plaintiffs’ verdict as directed by the mandates. See Rinker Materials Corporation v. Holloway Materials Corporation, Fla.App.1965, 175 So.2d 564; State ex rel. Mortgage Investment Foundation, Inc. v. Knott, Fla.1957, 97 So.2d 265.

Therefore the cause is remanded with directions to reinstate plaintiffs’ verdict.

PIERCE and MANN, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 164 (Thursday, August 23, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 42654]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-18186]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


Advisory Committee on Breast Cancer in Young Women (ACBCYW); 
Cancellation of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Advisory 
Committee on Breast Cancer in Young Women (ACBCYW); August 6, 2018, 
1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., Eastern.
    The teleconference which was published in the Federal Register on 
June 18, 2018, Volume 83, Number 117, pages 28231-28232.
    This meeting is being canceled in its entirety.
    For Further Information Contact: Temeika L. Fairley, Ph.D., 
Designated Federal Officer, National Center for Chronic Disease 
Prevention and Health Promotion, CDC, 4770 Buford Hwy. NE, Mailstop 
K52, Atlanta, Georgia 30341, Telephone (770) 488-4518, Fax (770) 488-
4760. Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d0b1b3b2b3a9a790b3b4b3feb7bfa6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b7d6d4d5d4cec0f7d4d3d499d0d8c1">[email protected]</span></a>.
    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been 
delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to 
announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, 
for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency 
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

Sherri Berger,
Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2018-18186 Filed 8-22-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4163-18-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Blueprint





 






EXHIBIT
10.59


 



CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT



TO



CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION



OF



FUSION TELECOMMUNICATIONS INTERNATIONAL, INC.


 


It is
hereby certified that:


 



1.            

The name of the
corporation (hereinafter called the “Corporation”) is
FUSION TELECOMMUNICATIONS INTERNATIONAL, INC.






 



2.            

The Certificate of
Amendment to the Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation,
recorded by the State of Delaware, Secretary of Corporations on
September 17, 1997, as thereafter amended, is hereby amended by
striking out the first paragraph of Article “FOURTH” thereof and by
substituting in lieu of said first paragraph, the following new
first paragraph of "FOURTH"
Article:






 


“FOURTH:
The total number of shares of Capital Stock which the Corporation
shall have authority to issue is 100,000,000 shares, of which
90,000,000 shares shall be Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share,
and 10,000,000 shares shall be Preferred Stock, par value $0.01 per
share.”


 



3.            

This Amendment to
the Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation herein
certified has been duly adopted in accordance with the provisions
of Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of
Delaware.






 



4.            

The effective time
of this Amendment to the Certificate of Incorporation shall be the
date of filing.






 



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this
Amendment to the Certificate of Incorporation of Fusion
Telecommunications International, Inc., as of October 28,
2016.


 



FUSION TELECOMMUNICATIONS INTERNATIONAL, INC.


 


 


By: /s/
Philip Turits__________________________


Name:
Philip Turits, as Secretary
### NUMBER 13

- 16

- 00 140

- CR 

## COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

SALUSTIANO VALENTE A RISMENDI , A ppellant ,
v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, A ppellee

.

On Appeal from the 24 th District Court of Victoria County, Texas.



## ORDER OF ABATEMENT
Before Justices Benavides, Perkes, and Longoria

Order Per Curiam Appellant ’ s brief was due on May 4, 2016 . Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.8(b)(2), on May 9, 2016 , the Clerk of the Court notified appellant ’ s counsel that the brief had not been timely filed, requested counsel to file a response concerning2

the failure to file the brief within ten days, and warned counsel that the Court would abate and remand this cause to the trial court for appropriate findin gs if a response was not filed. Counsel has nevertheless failed to file either a response or an appellate brief in
this matter. Accordingly, we now ABATE this appeal and REMAND the cause to the trial court for further proceedings pursuant to Rule 38.8(b) (2) and (3) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Upon remand, the trial court shall utilize whatever means necessary to make appropriate findings and recommendations concerning the following: (1) whether appellant desires to prosecute this appeal; ( 2) why appellant's counsel has failed to file a brief and whether counsel has effectively abandoned the appeal; (3) whether appellant has been denied effective assistance of counsel; (4) whether appellant's counsel should be removed; and (5) whether appell ant is indigent and entitled to court

- appointed counsel. If the trial court determines that appellant does want to continue the appeal, that present counsel should be removed, and that appellant is indigent and entitled to
court

- appointed counsel, the tria l court shall appoint new counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. If new counsel is appointed, the name, address, email address, telephone number, and state bar number of said counsel shall be included in an order appointing
counsel.
The trial cour t shall cause its finding s and recommendations, together with any orders it may enter regarding the aforementioned issues, to be included in a supplemental clerk's record. Furthermore, the trial court shall cause a supplemental reporter's record of any pr oceedings to be prepared. The supplemental clerk's record and supplemental3

reporter's record, if any, shall be filed with the Clerk of this Court on or before the expiration of thirty days from the date of this order. It is so ORDERED.
P ER CURIAM Do not publish. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).
D elivered and filed this the 27 th day of May, 2016.
# C_2013225EN.01000101.xml

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/1

---

2013/C 225/01

Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European Union

OJ C 215, 27.7.2013

OJ C 215, 27.7.2013

Past publications

Past publications

OJ C 207, 20.7.2013

OJ C 189, 29.6.2013

OJ C 178, 22.6.2013

OJ C 171, 15.6.2013

OJ C 164, 8.6.2013

OJ C 156, 1.6.2013

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---
VII

Private Calendar No. 6

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3718

[Report No. 103–577]

For the relief of Mark A. Potts.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NOVEMBER 22, 1993

Ms. MARGOLIES-MEZVINSKY introduced the following bill; which was referred

to the Committee on the Judiciary

JUNE 30, 1994

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House and ordered to be printed.

A BILL

For the relief of Mark A. Potts.

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

3 SECTION 1. CLASSIFICATION OF MARK A. POTTS AS A

4 CHILD FOLLOWING TO JOIN A PERMANENT

5 RESIDENT ALIEN.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Mark A. Potts shall be classified

7 as a child under section 101(b)(1) of the Immigration and

8 Nationality Act and a child accompanying or following to
2

HR 3718 RH

1 join his adoptive parent, an alien lawfully admitted for

2 permanent residence, under section 203(d) of such Act for

3 the purpose of the filing of an application for an immi4 grant visa or adjustment of status.

5 (b) EFFECT OF AGE.—The classification accorded

6 Mark A. Potts by subsection (a) shall apply and shall not

7 be denied or revoked regardless of whether he is under

8 21 years of age on any date that occurs before he is issued

9 an immigrant visa or his status is adjusted to that of an

10 alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence.

11 (c) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—If Mark A. Potts en12 ters the United States before the filing deadline specified

13 in subsection (d), he shall be considered to have entered

14 and remained lawfully and shall, if otherwise eligible, be

15 eligible for adjustment of status under section 245 of the

16 Immigration and Nationality Act as of the date of the en17 actment of this Act.

18 (d) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF

19 FEES.—Subsections (a), (b), and (c) shall apply only if

20 the application for issuance of an immigrant visa or the

21 application for adjustment of status is filed with appro22 priate fees within 2 years after the date of the enactment

23 of this Act.

24 (e) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBER.—

25 Upon the granting of an immigrant visa or permanent res-
3

HR 3718 RH

1 idence to Mark A. Potts, the Secretary of State shall in2 struct the proper officer to reduce by 1, during the current

3 or next following fiscal year, the total number of immi4 grant visas that are made available to natives of the coun5 try of the alien’s birth under section 203(a) of the Immi6 gration and Nationality Act or, if applicable, the total

7 number of immigrant visas that are made available to na8 tives of the country of the alien’s birth under section

9 202(e) of such Act.

10 (f) DENIAL OF PREFERENTIAL IMMIGRATION TREAT11 MENT FOR CERTAIN RELATIVES.—The natural parents,

12 brothers, and sisters of Mark A. Potts shall not, by virtue

13 of such relationship, be accorded any right, privilege, or

14 status under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Private Calendar No. 

6

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3718

[Report No. 103–577]

A BILL

For the relief of Mark A. Potts.

JUNE 30, 1994

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House and

ordered to be printed.
# C_2013171EN.01000101.xml

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/1

---

2013/C 171/01

Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European Union

OJ C 164, 8.6.2013

OJ C 164, 8.6.2013

Past publications

Past publications

OJ C 156, 1.6.2013

OJ C 147, 25.5.2013

OJ C 141, 18.5.2013

OJ C 129, 4.5.2013

OJ C 123, 27.4.2013

OJ C 114, 20.4.2013

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---
-84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74

36 38 40 42



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 500 18 12 06 00 08/17 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 17 Aug 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.90 N 76.65 WMeters AGL
1 The Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of South Dakota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable John E. Simko, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of South Dakota. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 04-1719

___________ Susan G. Dewerff, * * Appellant, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Social Security Administration; * District of South Dakota. Commissioner of Social Security; * United States Attorney; Attorney * [UNPUBLISHED] General of the United States, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: January 27, 2005 Filed: February 9, 2005

___________ Before BYE, RILEY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Susan Dewerff appeals the district court’s 1 order and judgment affirming the suspension of her supplemental security income (SSI) from November 1998 through April 2000, based on a finding that Dewerff had more than $2,000 in nonexcludable-2- resources. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.1205 (2004) (disabled individual with no spouse is eligible for SSI only if her nonexcludable resources do not exceed $2,000). Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude the administrative law judge’s (ALJ’s) decision to deny benefits--based on the ALJ’s determination that Dewerff failed to provide credible evidence that she had “spent down” her excess resources below the $2,000 threshold--is supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. SeeZeiler v. Barnhart , 384 F.3d 932, 935 (8th Cir. 2004) (appeals court affirms denial of benefits where substantial evidence in record as whole supports ALJ’s decision); Gregg v. Barnhart , 354 F.3d 710, 714 (8th Cir. 2003) (if ALJ expressly discredits claimant, and gives good reasons for doing so, court will normally defer to credibility assessment); Hudson v. Bowen , 849 F.2d 433, 434 (9th Cir. 1988) (in calculating whether claimant spent down excess resources for purposes of SSI, ALJ may disregard self-serving statements that cannot be verified). Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________
#### David COHEN and Minnie Cohen, Husband and Wife, Appellants, v. SARASOTA COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-44.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 27, 1973.

Carrol F. Dillon, Sarasota, for appellant.

' Richard E. Nelson and Ronald A. Cyril, Sarasota, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellants filed this interlocutory appeal from an order of taking entered in a condemnation action.

We are treating the interlocutory appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari and after hearing argument and carefully considering the briefs and record on appeal, deny certiorari.

Certiorari denied.

MANN, C. J., and HOBSON and BOARDMAN, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>


                                                                       EXHIBIT 5

                 [CLIFFORD CHANCE ROGERS & WELLS LLP LETTERHEAD]

September 29, 2000


24/7 Media, Inc.
1250 Broadway, 28th Floor
New York, New York 10001-3701

Ladies and Gentlemen:

         We have acted as special counsel to 24/7 Media, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the "Company"), in connection with the preparation and filing of
the Company's Registration Statement on Form S-3 (as the same may be amended or
supplemented from time to time, the "Registration Statement") with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Commission") under the Securities Act
of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), covering the possible offer and sale
from time to time of up to 2,000,000 shares of common stock, par value $.01 per
share (the "Shares"), by the Company and the stockholders of the Company listed
in the Registration Statement. This opinion is being provided at your request in
connection with the Registration Statement.

         In rendering the opinions expressed herein, we have examined the
Registration Statement, the Company's Certificate of Incorporation, as amended
to date (the "Charter"), and the By-laws of the Company, as amended to date, and
such corporate proceedings of the Company and such other documents as we have
deemed necessary. We have also examined and relied as to factual matters upon
the representations, warranties and other statements contained in originals or
copies, certified or otherwise identified to our satisfaction, of such records,
documents, certificates and other instruments as in our judgment are necessary
or appropriate to enable us to render the opinions expressed below.

         In such examination, we have assumed the genuineness of all signatures,
the authenticity of all documents, certificates and instruments submitted to us
as originals, the conformity with originals of all documents submitted to us as
copies and the absence of any amendments or modifications to those items
reviewed by us.

         Based upon the foregoing and subject to the assumptions,
qualifications, limitations and exceptions set forth herein, we are of the
opinion that the Shares will be duly authorized and, upon issuance, will be
validly issued, fully paid and nonassessable.

         The opinions stated herein are limited to the federal laws of the
United States and the laws of the State of Delaware.

         We hereby consent to the incorporation of this opinion by reference as
an exhibit to the Registration Statement and the reference to this firm under
the caption "Legal Matters" in the Registration Statement. In giving this
consent, we do not concede that we are within the category of persons whose
consent is required under the Securities Act or the rules and regulations of the
Commission promulgated thereunder.

Very truly yours,

/s/ Clifford Chance Rogers & Wells LLP
# C_2015086EN.01001601.xml

| 13.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/16

---

Acknowledgement of receipt of complaint CHAP(2015) 227

(2015/C 86/09)

The European Commission has received a series of complaints about enforcement of the German Minimum Wage Act in the international transport sector.

The Commission has registered these complaints in the central application for the registration of complaints on the application of Union law by a Member State under reference number CHAP(2015) 227.

Given the significant number of complaints it received on this subject, the Commission, with a view to responding swiftly and informing those concerned while making the most economical use of its administrative resources, is publishing this acknowledgment of receipt in the Official Journal of the European Union, and on the internet at:

Official Journal of the European Union

http://ec.europa.eu/eu_law/complaints/receipt/index_en.htm

The Commission is currently examining thoroughly all elements of the contested national measure to make sure that it is compliant with the EU law. The complainants will be informed, through the same channels, of the results of the Commission’s examination of these complaints and of the follow-up that the Commission may decide to take.

---