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

<ARTICLE>           5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         305,764
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   38,659
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     34,729
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      41,461,185
<DEPRECIATION>                              18,338,043
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              27,105,931
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                     14,011,000
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (276,788)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                27,105,931
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            14,719,473
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               12,163,962
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,120,893
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (565,382)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (565,382)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (565,382)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kelvin Benn, Also Known as Peter Benn, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Browne, J.), rendered February 16, 1990, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).

At the suppression hearing, the People adduced evidence that an undercover police officer had purchased crack cocaine *757from three men inside a bungalow in Far Rockaway. Thereafter, other officers from the undercover officer’s back-up team entered the bungalow and arrested the three men. We find unpersuasive the defendant’s contention that his constitutional rights were violated by the warrantless entry of the police into the bungalow. The defendant failed to establish at the pre-trial hearing that he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the bungalow so as to enable him to challenge the propriety of the warrantless police entry. The record simply showed that the defendant was found inside a "burned-out” bungalow, which had no electric lighting and which was basically empty except for some gym equipment. There was no proof presented at the hearing that the defendant owned any of this gym equipment, that he stayed at this bungalow with any frequency, or that he exercised any control over the premises *(see, People v Watkins,*121 AD2d 583, 583-584).

Further, we find that the hearing court did not improvidently exercise its discretion when it denied the defendant’s request for a continuance. Although "[o]rdinarily a request for a short adjournment in order to find an identified witness should be granted” *(People v Wood,*129 AD2d 598, 599), where it does not appear that the evidence to be supplied by the proposed witness is material or relevant, denial of an adjournment is proper *(see, People v Wood, supra,*at 599; *People v Wilkins,*133 AD2d 477, 478). In this case, the hearing court properly determined that the testimony of the proposed witness would not be material given the circumstances and the sufficiency of the testimony at the hearing. Lawrence, J. P., Harwood, Rosenblatt and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
Chronology

· September 13, 1994 -- LBNL questionnaire sent

November 11, 1994 -- AHAM Workshop

November 14, 1994 -- Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANOPR)

issued.

January 1995 - August 1995'-- Comments received in response to the

ANOPR

May 8, 1995 -- Phase I data submitted.

Initial questionnaire requesting energy usage and cost data (answered by

manufacturers and compiled by AHAM) was returned to LBNL

June 1995 -- Manufacturing sites visited by DOE and LBNL.

July 6, 1995 -- Phase II data submitted.

AHAM submitted additional data in response to a request by LBNL.

July 13, 1996 -- Workshop held by DOE.

In the workshop, the initial LBNL engineering analysis was presented. A

spreadsheet (AHAM15B) called Phase I analysis (spreadsheet AHAM15B)

was made public.

July 1995 - May 1996 -- LBNL performed additional analysis combining

Phase I and Phase II data. This analysis was conducted in compliance with

the proposed DOE test procedure.

October 1996 -- Draft Report on Design Optionsfor Clothes Washers and

Draft Report on the Preliminary Engineering Analysis for Clothes Washers

are made public.

November 15, 1996 -- DOE held Clothes Washer Workshop

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55E

,

Chronology 

• September 13, 1994 -- LBNL questionnaire sent 

• November 11, 1994 -- AHAM Workshop 

• November 14, 1994 -- Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANOPR) 

issued. 

• January 1995 - August 1995 -- Comments received in response to the 

ANOPR 

• May 8, 1995 -- Phase I data submitted. 

Initial questionnaire requesting energy usage and cost data (answered by 

manufacturers and compiled by AHAM) was returned to LBNL 

• June 1995 -- Manufacturing sites visited by DOE and LBNL. 

• July 6, 1995 -- Phase II data submitted. 

AHAM submitted additional data in response to a request by LBNL. 

• July 13, 1996 -- Workshop held by DOE. 

In the workshop, the initial LBNL engineering analysis was presented. A 

spreadsheet (AHAMI5B) called Phase I analysis (spreadsheet AHAMI5B) 

was made public. 

• July 1995 - May 1996 -- LBNL performed additional analysis combining 

Ph~se I an~ Phase II data. This analysis was conducted in compliance with 

the proposed DOE test procedure. 

• October 1996 -- Draft Report on Design Options for Clothes Washers and 

Draft Report on the Preliminary Engineering Analysis for Clothes Washers· 

are made public. 

• November 15,1996 -- DOE held Clothes Washer Workshop
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 947 

To ensure access to certain information for financial services industry 

regulators, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 14, 2013 

Mrs. HAGAN (for herself, Mr. TOOMEY, Mr. MANCHIN, and Mr. JOHANNS) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

A BILL 

To ensure access to certain information for financial services 

industry regulators, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘SAFE Act Confiden5 tiality and Privilege Enhancement Act’’. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 947 IS

1 SEC. 2. CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION SHARED BE2 TWEEN STATE AND FEDERAL FINANCIAL 

3 SERVICES REGULATORS. 

4 Section 1512(a) of the S.A.F.E. Mortgage Licensing 

5 Act of 2008 (12 U.S.C. 5111(a)) is amended by inserting 

6 ‘‘or financial services’’ before ‘‘industry’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# FILED September 3, 1998 Cecil W. Crowson Appellate Cou rt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CRIMINA L APPEALS OF T ENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE MAY SESSION, 1998 STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) C.C.A. NO. 01C01-9709- CC-00390 ) Appellee, ) ) ) MAURY COUNTY VS. ) ) HON. J IM T. HAMILTON VINCENT WA LKER, ) JUDGE ) Appe llant. ) (Direct Ap peal)

FOR THE APPELLANT : FOR THE APPELLEE : SHARA FLACY JOHN KNOX WALKUP Distri ct Public

Defender Attorney Generaland Reporter 128 N orth 2nd St. Pulaski, TN 38478 LISA A. NAY LOR Assistant Attorney General 425 Fifth Avenu e North Nashvill e, TN 37243-0493 MIKE BOTTOMS Distri ct Attor ney General P. O. Box 459 Lawrenceburg, TN 38464 OPINION FILED ________________________ AFFIRMED PURSU ANT TO RU LE 20 JERRY L . SMI TH, J UDGE-2- 

## OPINION On January 6, 1997, the tri al court i ssued a community corr ections violat ion warrant

for fai lure to pay

court costs, fines , supervi sion fees, and maintain employ ment. On May 5, 1997, a second revocat ion warrant was issued, this time for ag gravated robb ery. On June 2, 1997, the trial court revok ed Ap pellan t’s com mun ity corre ctions place men t and im pose d his originalsentence of i ncarcerati on.
After a review of the re cord, we affirm the judgmen t of the trial court pursuant to Cour

t of Cri minal Appeals Rule20. Appellant raises the following issues on appea l: Wheth er the trial court should have wai ted to rul e on the second warr ant untilAppellant was tried for the charge, and whether ther e is substant ial evi dence to support the tri al court’s d ecision to revoke Appell ant’s probat ion. “The court shall also possess the power to revoke the sentence impos ed at an y time du e to the co nduct o f the defen dant.” T enn. C ode An n. § 40-36-106(e)(4) The trialcourt did not have to wai t untilAppellant was tried for the aggravated robbery charge before rev oking community corrections.
The decision to revoke community correcti ons is entr usted to t he sound discreti on of the trial court who may revoke a defendant ’s placement i n such a program if a violation of the terms an d conditions the reof is established b y a prepon deranc e of the ev idence . State v. Hark in , 811 S.W.2d 79, 82 (Tenn.-3-

1991). There i s no requirement that the t rial j udge wait for a criminal convic tion to o ccur w hen a violation is brou ght to h is or he r attentio n and is establi shed by a preponderance of evidence. The testimony of

Juanita Stewar

t, that Appellant was the robber she saw and the test imony of Appell ant’s community correcti ons offi cer, that Appellant v iolated the terms of h is placement i n community correc tions provide a mple b asis to revo ke App ellant’s com munity c orrection s placem ent.
Pursuant to Court

of Criminal Appeals Rule 20 the judgment of t he trial court is affi rmed for the above stated reasons.

____________________________________ JERRY L . SMI TH, J UDGE
CONCUR:

___________________________________ GARY R. WADE, PRESI DING J UDGE

___________________________________ DAVID G. HAY ES, J UDGE
No. DA 20-0115

IN THE 

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

______________________

THE CITY OF MISSOULA,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

VS.

MOUNTAIN WATER COMPANY, a Montana Corporation; AND CARLYLE INFRASTRUCTURE 

PARTNERS, LP, a Delaware limited partnership,

Defendants/Appellees and CrossAppellants,

AND

THE EMPLOYEES OF MOUNTAIN WATER COMPANY,

Intervenors and Appellees.

__________________

ON APPEAL FROM THE MONTANA FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT,

MISSOULA COUNTY, HON. KAREN TOWNSEND, PRESIDING

CASE NO. DV-14-352

______________________________________________________________________________

GRANT OF UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

______________________________________________________________________________

Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), 

Defendant/Appellee, Cross Appellant Carlyle Infrastructure Partners, LP’s 

Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Opening Brief is granted. 

Plaintiff/Appellee, Cross Appellant Carlyle Infrastructure Partners, LP may file 

and serve its opening brief on or before September 18, 2020.

Dated: __________, 2020.

15155395_v1

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

August 4 2020

08/04/2020
#### Total Spectrum Manufacturing, Inc., Respondent, v Albert Frassetto et al., Appellants, and Ourelio and Sons, Inc., Defendant.

In an action, *inter alia,*to recover damages for breach of contract and for a judgment declaring the parties’ rights under certain leases, the defendants Albert Frassetto and Albert Frassetto Enterprises appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Kelly, J.), dated November 9, 1989, which granted the plaintiffs motion for a "Yellowstone Injunction” and for leave to serve an amended complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants argue that the court erred in granting the "Yellowstone Injunction”, since the lease did not set forth a period in which the plaintiff could cure the alleged defaults. We disagree.

It is settled that "[wjhen a contract fixes no time for performance, an agreement that performance shall take place within a reasonable time will be inferred” *(Senerchia Realty Corp. v Yonkers Community Dev. Agency,*80 AD2d 889, 890; *see also, Webster’s Red Seal Publs. v Gilberton World-Wide Publs.,*67 AD2d 339, 343, *affd*53 NY2d 643). Here, the lease states that the landlord has the right to re-enter the premises if "default be made in any of the covenants herein contained *and not cured in the time permitted by the lease”*(emphasis supplied). Because the lease fails to specify elsewhere any period for curing any defaults, the court properly inferred that the plaintiff had a "reasonable time” to cure its alleged defaults. Accordingly, since the plaintiff faced the threat of forfeiture and termination of the lease, the court did not err when it granted the injunction *(see, Post v 120 E. End Ave. Corp., 62*NY2d 19, 25-26; *Garland v Titan W. Assocs.,*147 AD2d 304; *Mann Theatres Corp. v Mid-Island Shopping Plaza Co.,*94 AD2d 466, *affd*62 NY2d 930).

In light of this conclusion, it is unnecessary to consider the plaintiffs other contentions. Lawrence, J. P., Harwood, Rosenblatt and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                              5
<MULTIPLIER>                                           1,000

<S>                                                   <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                      Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                         Jan-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                           Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                          12-MOS
<CASH>                                                 876
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          99,377
<ALLOWANCES>                                           4,251
<INVENTORY>                                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                       132,145
<PP&E>                                                 33,207
<DEPRECIATION>                                         18,312
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                         1,490,331
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                  69,316
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                               960
<OTHER-SE>                                             1,181,555
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                           1,490,626
<SALES>                                                592,455
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       592,455
<CGS>                                                  397,462
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          163,289
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       1,743
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     1,916
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        29,788
<INCOME-TAX>                                           11,191
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    18,597
<DISCONTINUED>                                         78,493
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                           97,090
<EPS-BASIC>                                            1.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          1.00





</TABLE>
Exhibit 23.1
                                                                   ------------


            Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm


[Letterhead of Mantyla McRynolds LLC]



Ladies and Gentlemen:

We consent to the inclusion in the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Arknona, Inc.
("Arkona") for the year ended March 31, 2006 filed with the SEC on November June
29, 2006 of our report dated May 18, 2006and to the  incorporation  by reference
of such report in the Registration  Statements on Form S-8, File Nos. 333-122279
and  333-99139  filed by Arkona with respect to the Arkona 2001 Stock  Incentive
Plan (Amended and Restated).


/s/ Mantyla McReynolds
--------------------------------------
Mantyla McReynolds, a
professional corporation

Certified Independent Public Accountants


Salt Lake City, Utah
June 29, 2006
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 176 (Tuesday, September 11, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46019-46020]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-19626]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Special Projects 
Committee

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Special 
Projects Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is 
soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving 
customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.

DATES: The meeting will be held Wednesday, October 17, 2018.

[[Page 46020]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew O'Sullivan at 1-888-912-1227 
or (510) 907-5274.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) 
that a meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Special Projects 
Committee will be held Wednesday, October 17, 2018, at 2:00 p.m. 
Eastern Time via teleconference. The public is invited to make oral 
comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited 
conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made 
with Matthew O'Sullivan. For more information please contact Matthew 
O'Sullivan at 1-888-912-1227 or (510) 907-5274, or write TAP Office, 
1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612-5217 or contact us at the website: 
http://www.improveirs.org. The agenda will include various IRS issues.
    The agenda will include a discussion on various special topics with 
IRS processes.

    Dated: September 1, 2018.
Kevin Brown,
Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
[FR Doc. 2018-19626 Filed 9-10-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 176 (Tuesday, September 11, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 46016]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-19678]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Toll-Free Phone Line 
Project Committee

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Toll-Free Phone 
Line Project Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel 
is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving 
customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.

DATES: The meeting will be held Tuesday, October 9, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rosalind Matherne at 1-888-912-1227 or 
202-317-4115.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) 
that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Toll-Free Phone 
Line Project Committee will be held Tuesday, October 9, 2018, at 3:00 
p.m. Eastern Time via teleconference. The public is invited to make 
oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to 
limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be 
made with Rosalind Matherne. For more information please contact 
Rosalind Matherne at 1-888-912-1227 or 202-317-4115, or write TAP 
Office, 1111 Constitution Ave. NW, Room 1509, Washington, DC 20224 or 
contact us at the website: http://www.improveirs.org. The agenda will 
include various IRS issues.
    The committee will be discussing Toll-free issues and public input 
is welcomed.

     Dated: September 1, 2018.
Kevin Brown,
Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
[FR Doc. 2018-19678 Filed 9-10-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
VI 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 74 

For the relief of Momo Krcic. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 23 (legislative day, JANUARY 3), 2013 

Mr. LEVIN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

For the relief of Momo Krcic. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi5 sion of law, for the purposes of the Immigration and Na6 tionality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), Momo Krcic shall 

7 be deemed to have been lawfully admitted to, and re8 mained in, the United States, and shall be eligible for ad9 justment of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted 

10 for permanent residence under section 245 of the Immi11 gration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255) upon filing 

12 an application for such adjustment of status. 


smartinez on DSK6TPVN1PROD with 
2 

•S 74 IS

1 (b) APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF FEES.—Sub2 section (a) shall apply only if the application for adjust3 ment of status is filed with appropriate fees not later than 

4 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

5 (c) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBERS.— 

6 Upon the granting of permanent resident status to Momo 

7 Krcic, the Secretary of State shall instruct the proper offi8 cer to reduce by 1, during the current or next following 

9 fiscal year, the total number of immigrant visas that are 

10 made available to natives of the country of the birth of 

11 Momo Krcic under section 202(a)(2) of the Immigration 

12 and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1152(a)(2)). 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPVN1PROD with