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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM MARCH 31,
1996 QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1996
<CASH>                                         119,048
<SECURITIES>                                    19,272
<RECEIVABLES>                                  562,937
<ALLOWANCES>                                    71,636
<INVENTORY>                                    178,393
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,010,629
<PP&E>                                       2,092,707
<DEPRECIATION>                                 920,499
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,552,252
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          793,401
<BONDS>                                        299,076
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    576,379
<COMMON>                                       104,691
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,053,107
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,552,252
<SALES>                                        806,759
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               806,759
<CGS>                                          446,276
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  446,276
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 6,119
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,407
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 48,071
<INCOME-TAX>                                    22,034
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             26,037
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    26,037
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .14
        

</TABLE>
#### INTERNATIONAL ERECTORS, INC., et al., Petitioners, v. AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK AND TRUST COMPANY OF FORT LAUDERDALE, Florida, et al., Respondents.

No. 43466.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 16, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 273 So.2d 771.

ROBERTS, Acting C. J, and ADKINS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur.

ERVIN and DEKLE, JJ., dissent.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 695 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 695

 To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend the authorization of 
 appropriations for the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to pay a monthly 
assistance allowance to disabled veterans training or competing for the 
    Paralympic Team and the authorization of appropriations for the 
 Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide assistance to United States 
               Paralympics, Inc., and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 10, 2013

Mr. Boozman (for himself and Mr. Begich) 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 extend the authorization of 
 appropriations for the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to pay a monthly 
assistance allowance to disabled veterans training or competing for the 
    Paralympic Team and the authorization of appropriations for the 
 Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide assistance to United States 
               Paralympics, Inc., 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 ``Veterans Paralympic Act of 2013''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR PAYMENT OF A 
              MONTHLY ASSISTANCE ALLOWANCE TO DISABLED VETERANS 
              TRAINING OR COMPETING FOR THE PARALYMPIC TEAM.

    Section 322(d)(4) of title 38, United States Code, is amended by 
striking ``2013'' and inserting ``2018''.

SEC. 3. EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR ASSISTANCE TO 
              UNITED STATES PARALYMPICS, INC.

    Section 521A of title 38, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in subsection (g), by striking ``2013'' and inserting 
        ``2018''; and
            (2) in subsection (l), by striking ``2013'' and inserting 
        ``2018''.
                                 <all>
```
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT MAURICE JONES, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-3499 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ___________________________________) Opinion filed April 25, 2018. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Chris Helinger, Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. LaROSE, C.J., and BLACK and SLEET, JJ., Concur.
Exhibit 32.1 Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for period ended March 31, 2014 (the Report) of GSV Capital Corp. (the Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Michael T. Moe, the Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that: (1)

          The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and (2)

          The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant. /s/ Michael T. MoeName: Michael T. MoeDate: May 12, 2014
#### Digby Hamilton et al., Plaintiffs, v City of New York et al., Defendants, and Schiavone Construction Co., Inc., et al., Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents-Appellants. Leskay Construction Services, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant-Respondent.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the third-party defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated June 29, 1989, as denied its motion for partial summary judgment dismissing that part of the complaint which would hold it liable for anything covered by the insurance policy in issue, and the defendants third-party plaintiffs cross-appeal from so much of the same order as denied that branch of their motion which was to dismiss the third-party defendant’s first affirmative defense.

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

The general liability policy at issue was procured by the defendants third-party plaintiffs from Employers Insurance of Wausau. The third-party defendant was named as an additional insured under that policy.

In its first affirmative defense to the third-party action, the third-party defendant asserted that the third-party action was, in part, a subrogation suit brought against it by its own insurance carriers. The defendants third-party plaintiffs met their burden of demonstrating the existence of triable issues of fact by citing the employee exclusion provision of the policy. The third-party defendant countered with a claim of waiver and/or estoppel. Significantly, at no time prior to the time the underlying motions were made did any party seek a declaration of coverage. It cannot be determined, at this juncture, whether the third-party action is one brought by an insurer improperly pursuing subrogation against its own insured *(cf. Pennsylvania Gen. Ins. Co. v Austin Powder Co.,*68 NY2d 465).

We further find that the determination as to whether the third-party defendant’s first affirmative defense should be dismissed must await a judgment in the main action and the payment of the plaintiffs’ award, if any. Bracken, J. P., Kunzeman, Sullivan and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
NUMBER 13-08-00670-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

______________________________________________________________

AUTOMOTIVE CONSULTING SERVICES, INC., Appellant,

v.

GUERRA & MOORE, LTD., LLP,

CARLOS L. GUERRA, AND J. MICHAEL MOORE, Appellees. 

_____________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 6 

of Hidalgo County, Texas.

______________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Vela

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by the County Court at Law

No. 6 of Hidalgo County, Texas, in cause number CL-08-1868-F. The parties have filed

an agreed, joint motion for disposition pursuant to settlement. The parties request that this

Court dismiss the appeal.
2

The Court, having considered the documents on file and the parties’ agreed, joint

motion for disposition pursuant to settlement, is of the opinion that the motion should be

granted. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a). The parties’ motion to dismiss is granted, and the

appeal is hereby DISMISSED. In accordance with the agreement of the parties, costs are

taxed against the party incurring same. See TEX. R.APP.P. 42.1(d). Having dismissed the

appeal at the parties’ request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained, and our mandate

will issue forthwith.

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and 

filed this the 26th day of March, 2009.
**EXHIBIT 8.1**

 

**LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES**

 
| **Subsidiaries**                      | ** ** | **Jurisdiction**       |
|---------------------------------------|------------|------------------------|
|                                  |       |                   |
| Embotelladora Andina Chile S.A.       |       | Chile                  |
| Andina Inversiones Societarias S.A.   |       | Chile                  |
| Andina Bottling Investments Dos S.A.  |       | Chile                  |
| Andina Bottling Investments S.A.      |       | Chile                  |
| Red de Transportes Comerciales Ltda.  |       | Chile                  |
| Transportes Trans Heca Ltda.          |       | Chile                  |
| Servicios Multivending Ltda.          |       | Chile                  |
| Transportes Andina Refrescos Ltda.    |       | Chile                  |
| Vital Jugos S.A.                      |       | Chile                  |
| Vital Aguas S.A.                      |       | Chile                  |
| Transportes Polar S.A.                |       | Chile                  |
| Envases Central S.A.                  |       | Chile                  |
| Inversiones Los Andes S.A.            |       | Chile                  |
| Rio de Janeiro Refrescos Ltda.        |       | Brazil                 |
| Embotelladora del Atlántico S.A. |       | Argentina              |
| Andina Empaques Argentina S.A.        |       | Argentina              |
| Paraguay Refrescos S.A.               |       | Paraguay               |
| Abisa Corp.                           |       | British Virgin Islands |
| Aconcagua Investment Ltd.             |       | British Virgin Islands |

 

----
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING DOCKET NO. OJP (DOJ) 1540

AG ORDER NO. 3255

- 2011; RIN1121

- AA77

76 FR 11705 (MARCH 3, 2011)

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE: CERTIFICATION PROCESS FOR

STATE CAPITAL COUNSEL SYSTEMS

MEETING SUMMARY

RE: MEETING WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF THE CONSTITUTION PROJECT

DATE/TIME OF MEETING: MAY 20, 2011 11:00 AM

- 12:00 PM

PLACE OF MEETING: DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, RFK BUILDING

ATTENDEES:

FROM THE CONSTITUTION PROJECT :

Christopher Durocher, Government Affairs Counsel, Criminal Justice Prog ram, Washington,

D.C.

Adrienne Lee Benson, Associate, Criminal Justice Program, Washington, D.C.

FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE :

Pamela Harris, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Policy

Lisa Ellman, Senior Counsel, Office of Legal Policy

Caroline Nguyen, Senior Counsel, Office of Legal Policy

SUMMARY OF MEETING:

The representatives of the Constitution Project requested a meeting with the Department of

Justice to discuss their reactions to and comments on the Notice of Propo sed Rulemaking (NPRM),

which was formally published in the Federal Register on March 3, 2011. The representatives

introduced the session by explaining that they were generally pleased with the proposed rule, which

they considered a substantial improvement over the previous (now removed) rule on the subject.

They expressed gratitude to the Department for listening to their comments in the prior comment

period, and offered their support and assistance to the Department in finalizing this proposed rule.

T he Department explained that this meeting, in accordance with policy, was to be a listening

session only. The Department emphasized that it welcomed comments to the proposed rules, and

would carefully consider all submissions.

T he meeting continued wit h the representatives of the Constitution Project making a number

of specific suggestions regarding the proposed rule

. In particular, the representatives expressed their

views that : 1) the certification process should be insulated from conflicts of intere st within the

Department; 2) states should have discretion to designate someone other than the state attorney

general to seek certification on behalf of a state ; 3) the compensation provisions were potentially

inadequate; and 4) the rule should expressly i dentify specific litigation expenses. They alsocommented on the provisions governing attorney competence, noting their belief that that the

provision lacked an enforcement mechanism

, and suggesting that the rule require counsel to possess

at least some e xperience in capital or habeas proceedings in particular . Finally, they requested that

the rule describe in greater detail what is required from states with regard to the certification process

itself, and also that the rule include a requirement that outs ide affected parties , such as state defender

services, receive notice of certification requests and decisions.

The meeting ended with the Department encouraging the representatives to lay out the full

extent of their recommendations in their written comments.
#### Caridad Armas, Appellant, v Evelio Armas, Respondent.

Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, income execution reinstated and matter remitted to Supreme Court for a hearing, in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting defendant’s application to vacate the maintenance provision of the divorce judgment on the ground that plaintiff was habitually living with another man. Cohabitation alone is insufficient as a matter of law. The court was obligated to determine whether plaintiff was holding herself out as the other man’s wife *(see,*Domestic Relations Law § 248; *Matter of Bliss v Bliss,*66 NY2d 382, 388; *Northrup v Northrup,*43 NY2d 566, 571-572). The matter is remitted for a hearing on this issue because it cannot be resolved solely on the basis of conflicting affidavits *(see, Levy v Levy,*143 AD2d 975, 977). The income execution vacated by Supreme Court is reinstated. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Nassau County, Becker, J.—Maintenance and Child Support.) Present—Denman, J. P., Green, Balio, Lowery and Davis, JJ.
Exhibit 32.2
 
 Certification of Principal Financial Officer
 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 CBC Acquisition Corp. 1 (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Chi Wu, 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 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.
 
 /s/ Chi WuChi Wu
Principal Financial Officer

May 23, 2011
Filed 2/11/20

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF 

CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JAMES DAVID BECK and GERALD DEAN CRUZ,

Defendants and Appellants.

S029843

Alameda County Superior Court

110467-A and 110467-B

ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND

DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING

THE COURT:

The opinion in this matter filed on December 2, 2019, and 

appearing at 8 Cal.5th 584, is modified as follows:

In the paragraph spanning pages 644 and 645, in the sentence 

beginning “We conclude there is no reasonable probability,” the phrase 

“there is no reasonable probability Beck and Cruz were prejudiced by 

any error” is replaced by the phrase “the instructional error was 

harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” As modified, the sentence now 

reads: 

We conclude the instructional error was harmless beyond a 

reasonable doubt. 

This modification does not change the judgment.

The petition for rehearing is denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 99.1

                           ON Technology Corporation
                               880 Winter Street
                               Waltham, MA 02451

              LETTER TO COMMISSION PURSUANT TO TEMPORARY NOTE 3T

                                  March 26, 2002

Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549-0408

Ladies and Gentlemen:

   Pursuant to Temporary Note 3T to Article 3 of Regulation S-X, ON Technology
Corporation has obtained a letter of representation from Arthur Andersen LLP
("Andersen") stating that the December 31, 2001 audit was subject to their
quality control system for the U.S. accounting and auditing practice to provide
reasonable assurance that the engagement was conducted in compliance with
professional standards, and that there was appropriate continuity of Andersen
personnel working on the audit, availability of national office consultation,
and availability of personnel at foreign affiliates of Andersen to conduct the
relevant portions of the audit.

                                             Very Truly Yours,

                                                   ON TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION

                                                     /s/  STEVEN R. WASSERMAN
                                                   -----------------------------
                                                     Name: Steven R. Wasserman
                                                     Title: Vice President of
                                                              Finance
                                                    and Chief Financial Officer

                                      1
Filing your claim

• If on a National Guard/Reserve deployment – File as Contingency

The TCS order will have a DEMOB Station listed and will also have a mobilization order which orders 

the soldier to active duty. Soldier will receive a release from active duty (REFRAD) order and/or 

DD214. 

TCS Order

Mobilization Order
REFRAD Order

• If on an Active Duty Deployment – File as Active Duty

Active Duty Service Members should always file as Active Duty. 

The TCS orders will not have a DEMOB Station listed. Soldier will not have a mobilization order 

ordering to active duty or receive a REFRAD order.
1

Order entered October 4 , 2016

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 16
- 00215
- CV SULMA GONZALES, Appellant

V. THE DALLAS COUNTY AP PRAISAL DISTRICT AND THE APPRAISAL REVI EW BOARD OF DALLAS COUN TY APPRAISAL DISTRIC T AND LYONS EQUITIES , INC., Appellee On Appeal from the 162nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 13
- 09665



### O RDER Before the Court is appellant’s September 28, 2016 “motion for correction of transcripts filed by court reporter and for extension of time to file brief of appellant.” This is appellant’s fourth request for an extension of time to file her brief. In addition to seeking a thirty

- day extension of time to file her brie f, appellant asks the Court to “allow the court reporter to correct the transcripts for the December 9, 2013 hearing” so that they include “the transcripts for the Motion to Vacate two Judgments.” Appellant indicates that she requires the extension to file her brief because she needs time to review “all court transcripts.” Our records show that all transcripts requested by appellant have been filed and the reporter’s record is complete. On August 12, 2016, appellant filed a third motion for extension2

of ti me to file her brief in which she contended she “could not initiate the appeal work” because the reporter’s record has not been filed. She asked the Court compel Ms. Martin to prepare and forward all requested transcripts to the Court and send a copy to a ppellant. On August 16, 2016, we granted appellant’s motion, ordered the court reporter, Ms. Sheretta L. Martin to prepare and file the transcripts for hearings held on December 9, 2013, November 30, 2015, and March 21, 2016 no later than August 31, 2016, and warned appellant that, absent exigent circumstances, her appeal would be dismissed if she failed to file her brief by September 30, 2016. Ms Martin filed the reporter’s record on August 30, 2016 in accordance with this Court’s August 16, 2016 order. T he transcript of the December 9, 2013 hearing is Volume 1 of the reporter’s record that was filed on August 30, 2016. The trial court’s docket sheet shows that the trial court heard appellant’s motion for new trial and motion to vacate two judgments at th e December 9, 2013 hearing. The court reporter certified Volume 1 of the reporter’s record as a complete transcript of all proceedings and evidence requested by the parties to be included in the transcript of the December 9, 2013 hearing. Accordingly, if a ny arguments were made on the motion to vacate, they would be included in the transcript filed by the court reporter on August 30, 2016. Accordingly, we DENY appellant’s motion for correction of transcripts.
We GRANT appellant’s fourth motion to extend tim e to file appellant’s brief. Appellant’s brief shall be filed on or before October 31 , 2016. We caution appellant that no further extensions will be granted absent exigent circumstances and that failure to file the brief may result in dismissal of the app eal without further notice.

/s/ CRAIG STODDART JUSTICE