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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE LORONIX
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET, STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND CASH FLOWS
FROM ITS 10-KSB FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                       1,625,259<F1>
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,845,490
<ALLOWANCES>                                   433,171
<INVENTORY>                                  1,925,050
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,177,478
<PP&E>                                       6,546,689
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,461,609
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,418,220
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,293,761
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,647
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,039,847
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,418,220
<SALES>                                     12,710,871
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            12,710,871
<CGS>                                        6,816,573
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               14,925,094
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (128,097)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              75,453
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,161,579)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,162,379)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,162,379)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.47)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.47)
<FN>
<F1>THE COMPANY HAS TWO OUTSTANDING LETTERS OF CREDIT COLLATERALIZED BY A
COMBINATION OF CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT AND CASH TOTALING APPROXIMATELY
$100,000.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 12.2
CERTIFICATION
     I, Mayela Rincón de Velasco, Chief Financial Officer of CorporaciónDurango, S.A. de C.V. (the “Company”), certify that:
1. I have reviewed the Company’s annual report on Form 20-F for the year endedDecember 31, 2003, as amended by the Form 20-F/A to which this statement isfiled as an exhibit (the “Report”); 2. Based on my knowledge, the Report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatement made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by theReport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in the Report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial conditions, results of operations and cash flows ofthe Company as of, and for, the periods presented in the Report; 4. The Company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Company andhave:
(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theCompany, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich the Report is being prepared; (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in the Report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, asof the end of the period covered by the Report based on suchevaluation; and (c) Disclosed in the Report any change in the Company’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the periodcovered by the Report that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and
5. The Company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, tothe Company’s auditors and the audit committee of the Company’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Company’s abilityto record, process, summarize and report financial information; and (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the Company’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.
Date: July 22, 2004      /s/ Mayela Rincón de VelascoBy: Mayela Rincón de VelascoTitle: Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 31.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION I, Brian Chase, Chief Financial Officer of Garrison Capital Inc., certify that: 1.

          I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Garrison Capital Inc.; 2.

          Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 3.

          Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of and for the periods presented in this report; 4.

          The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e))for the registrant and have: a)

          Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; b)

          [Omitted]; c)

          Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and d)

          Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and 5.

          The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): a)

          All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and b)

          Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting. Date: August 8, 2013 By:

          /s/ Brian Chase Brian Chase Chief Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Patrick Dixon, Also Known as Patricio Dixon, Appellant.

? Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Greenberg, J.), rendered June 20, 1989, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The only issue raised on appeal concerns the court’s *Sandoval*ruling. We conclude that the court’s ruling was not an improvident exercise of its discretion, as the defendant failed to establish that the prejudicial effect of admitting evidence of some of his past illegal activities outweighed its probative value *(see, People v Sandoval,*34 NY2d 371; *People v Boseman,*161 AD2d 601). The court precluded, as unduly prejudicial, any inquiry into a youthful offender adjudication which involved possession of a weapon and inquiry into the underlying facts of a conviction involving the sale of narcotics. The court’s decision to permit inquiry into the underlying facts, but not the disposition, of a second youthful offender adjudication was proper *(see, People v Duffy,*36 NY2d 258, *cert denied*423 US 861; *People v Colon,*161 AD2d 782). Since the facts underlying the youthful offender adjudication involved a larceny, those facts were probative of the defendant’s credibility *(see, People v Boseman, supra; People v Branch,*155 AD2d 475). Lawrence, J. P., Harwood, Rosenblatt and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Carlos Roman, Appellant, v New York City Housing Authority et al., Respondents.

Order of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered on September 11, 1989, which, *inter alia,*dismissed the petition as untimely, unanimously modified, on the law, the petition reinstated, and the matter remanded for a hearing to deter*433mine whether petitioner is a permanent, tenured employee, without costs.

After working for the New York City Housing Authority for thirteen years, petitioner was promoted to the position of probationary plasterer. By letter dated August 9, 1988, in the final month of the one year probationary period, petitioner was terminated from his new position. The transfer card completed by respondent upon petitioner’s promotion does not indicate whether petitioner’s permanent tenured status was preserved.

The Motion Court dismissed the petition as untimely. CPLR 217 requires that this CPLR article 78 petition be commenced within four months of a final determination. The Motion Court measured the limitations period from the date of the initial termination, August 19, 1988, and held that the request by respondent for reinstatement on March 15, 1989, did not toll the limitations period. The article 78 proceeding was commenced on July 14, 1989, within four months of the request for reinstatement.

On this record the timeliness of the petition cannot be determined because petitioner’s status is unclear. A hearing is necessary to determine whether petitioner’s thirteen year tenure as a caretaker confers upon him the status of a tenured, permanent employee entitled as of right to seek reinstatement. *(See, Matter of Hicks v Fogg,*79 AD2d 258.) Concur—Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Wallach and Smith, JJ.
#### Geri Klenetsky, Appellant, v State of New York, Respondent.

(Claim No. 69250.)

In a negligence claim to recover damages for personal injuries, the claimant appeals from a judgment of the Court of Claims (Blinder, J.), dated September 6, 1989, which, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the claim.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

On April 18, 1982, the claimant sustained injuries when she fell from a bicycle while riding on a pathway known as the "Motor Parkway” in the vicinity of an overpass of the Grand Central Parkway. It is alleged that as the claimant was riding under the overpass, debris on the pathway in the form of rocks and sand, resulting from vandalism and erosion of the adjacent slopes, caused her to fall and sustain injuries.

Pursuant to Highway Law § 349-c, the State of New York properly transferred responsibility for maintenance of the Grand Central Parkway Arterial Highway to the City of New York, by transfer order dated July 9, 1974 *(see,*Highway Law § 349-c [3.4]). The record discloses that in response to the *647City’s own inquiry regarding the subject site, by letter dated June 3, 1980, the State directed the City "to provide necessary maintenance so that the adjacent abutment slopes are protected from further threatening damage”. The claimant’s expert conceded that the hazardous condition created on the path was a maintenance problem and not a design defect.

In view of the State’s proper transfer of maintenance responsibility and the specific written direction to the City to repair the subject area, the State may not be held to have breached any duty owed to the claimant *(cf., Gunn v Good Luck Truck Rental,*85 AD2d 567, 568). Therefore, we conclude that the Court of Claims properly entered judgment in favor of the State, dismissing the claim against it. Thompson, J. P., Brown, Miller and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
#### Brown & Sully v. Painter.

1. Statute of Limitations: taxation: action. An action for the recovery of taxes paid moie than five years before the commencement of the action is barred by the statute of limitations.

2. -: runs against a county. The statute of limitations will operate to bar an action by a county not commenced within the period limited by the statute.

*Appeal from Des Moines District Court.*

Wednesday, October 18.

This is the same case that was determined in 38 Iowa, 456. The cause having been remanded to the court below, the plaintiffs, on the 24th day of May, 1875, filed their amended petition praying a judgment for the taxes and penalties from the year 1856 to the year 1870, both inclusive, and that the same be declared a lien upon the premises in question.

The defendant demurred to the petition on the ground that it shows on its face that the claim is barred by the statute of limitations. The court sustained the demurrer except as to the two last named items of taxes paid.

The cause was then submitted to the court upon an agreed statement of facts. ' The court found that plaintiffs’ claim for taxes paid prior to five years immediately preceding the filing of the amended petition is barred by the statute of limitations, and rendered judgment for the taxes paid within five years prior to May 24, 1875. Plaintiffs appeal

*J. <& 8. K.*Tracy, for appellants.

No argument on* file for 'appellee.

Day, J".

i statute of ta£attou:ls: aotiou. The only question presented is, whether the action for the recovery of the taxes paid more than five years prior to the commencement of the action is barred by the statute of limitations. It is claimed by appellant that plaintiffs, under the doctrine of *Everett v.*Beebe, 37 Iowa, 452, is subrogated to the rights of the *369county and State, and that the statute of limitations does not run against him, under the doctrine of *County of Des Moines v. Harker,*34 Iowa, 84.

It has never been determined that the statute of limitations does not run against a count}'. ■ Indeed, the very opposite of that has been settled by adjudications of this court. In *County of Des Moines v.*Harker, it was held that the statute of limitations did not run because the suit, although in the name of the county, was in effect an action by the State. In *State v.*Henderson, 40 Iowa, 242, it was held that the statute of limitations did run, notwithstanding the action was in the name of the State, because it was in the interest of, and for the ultimate benefit of the county. This case also determines that the county is liable to the State for delinquencies in the taxes, and that suits pertaining thereto must be prosecuted by the county, or for the use of the county.

In *The City of Burlington v. B. & M. R. R. Co.,*41 Iowa, 134, it was held that five years bars an action of a city for the recovery of delinquent taxes. Under the doctrine of *State v. Henderson,*the same statute would equally bar an action by a county for the recovery of taxes. So that, if we should concede for *Everett v. Beebe*all that counsel for appellants claim, still the judgment of the court below is right.

Affirmed.
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2015-6539 Directorate Identifier: 2015-NM-036-AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered 

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

Initial Inspection 1.0 $ 85.00 $0 $ 85.00 940 $79,900.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance: 0

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $79,900

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $0

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours 

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $0 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs):
Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO 

*Explanation:
**Exhibit
      23.1**




**CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**




We
      have
      issued our report dated September 18, 2007, accompanying the financial
      statements included in the Annual Report of clickNsettle.com, Inc. on Form
      10-KSB for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2007. We hereby consent to the
      incorporation by reference of said report in the Registration Statement of
      clickNsettle.com, Inc. and Subsidiaries on Form S-8 (File No. 333-73402,
      effective November 15, 2001).




/S/
      BP
      AUDIT GROUP, PLLC





Farmingdale,
      New York


September
      18, 2007
THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION 

WASHINGTON DC 20590 

June 23. 2011 

OOT. OST- UCX;^ -~ i S> ^ U 

• -rnTMENT OF 

'•^ optmms 

bnoTi ble James L. Oberslar 

lidde 1 Meadow Terrace 

lac, ^ D 20854 

Dea 

Thank yo\ 

Essential j 

tor your letter regarding assistance to the Chisholm/Hibbing Airport under the 

T Service (EAS) program. 

As you kilbw, Mesaba Aviation currently serves Chisholm/Hibbing and Thief River Falls on a 

route with Minneapolis. Because Chisholm/Hibbing's flights are scheduled with Thief River 

Fails, the Department is currently subsidizing Mesaba Aviation to provide 3 nonstop round trips 

a day to Minneapolis (19 per week) with 34-seat Saab aircraft, and its current contract runs 

through October 31,2011. 

In anticipation of the end of the current contract, the Department formally solicited proposals 

from airlines interested in providing EAS at Chisholm/Hibbing, as well as Thief River Falls, by 

Order 2011-4-1 on April 1,2011. Proposals were originally due May 3,2011, but, in response to 

a request from Mesaba Aviation that was fully supported by community officials, we extended 

the due date to August 1. As is normal practice, shortly after that date, we will forward the 

carrier proposals to the community officials and solicit their comments. Before making a final 

carrier-selection decision, we will carefiilly review the merits and subsidy request of each 

proposal, taking into account the views of the communities' elected officials. 

We are placing a copy of your letter and this response in the Docket, which is available for 

public viewing at v^^ww.regulations.gov by entering in the search field DOT-OST-2003-15796, 

If I can provide further information 
1 

SI 0-1 10601-022 

James L. Oberstar 

Member of Congress 

8th District. Minnesota -ffygftfr* ^^ ~ ^Cff f 

(1975-2011) " 7 ^ * 

(U^,, ^ ^ ,:H.Uis2i cA^rfir .f^-'H^^
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 176 (Tuesday, September 11, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 46010]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-19718]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 10535]


Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Imported 
for Exhibition--Determinations: ``Tudors to Windsors: British Royal 
Portraits From Holbein to Warhol'' Exhibition

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I 
hereby determine that certain objects to be included in the exhibition 
``Tudors to Windsors: British Royal Portraits from Holbein to Warhol,'' 
imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, 
are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan 
agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that 
the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the Museum of Fine 
Arts, Houston, in Houston, Texas, from on or about October 7, 2018, 
until on or about February 3, 2019, and at possible additional 
exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national 
interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these determinations be 
published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elliot Chiu, Attorney-Adviser, Office 
of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-
6471; email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#097a6c6a7d6066673b3d3c30497a7d687d6c276e667f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="80f3e5e3f4e9efeeb2b4b5b9c0f3f4e1f4e5aee7eff6">[email protected]</span></a>). The mailing address is U.S. 
Department of State, L/PD, SA-5, Suite 5H03, Washington, DC 20522-0505.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The foregoing determinations were made 
pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the 
Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681, 
et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of Authority No. 234 
of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 
2000.

 Marie Therese Porter Royce,
Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of 
State.
[FR Doc. 2018-19718 Filed 9-10-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4710-05-P


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