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

<ARTICLE> 7
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                            172617
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                        7898
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                  180515
<CASH>                                           20510
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                               75502
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                            8900
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  440075
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                 148844
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                              77948
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            87
<OTHER-SE>                                      119567
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    440075
<PREMIUMS>                                       92085
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                               9579
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                  52
<OTHER-INCOME>                                   32398
<BENEFITS>                                       56703
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                       8382
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                             62384
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   6645
<INCOME-TAX>                                       775
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               5870
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      5870
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.67
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.65
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                   60786
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                              13277
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                48477
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                8226
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                 15144
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                  31368
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                           8226
        

</TABLE>
#### Luigi Masi, Plaintiff, v Zavitz Brothers Limited, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent. Northeast Marine Terminal Co., Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the third-party defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Huttner, J.), dated December 5, 1989, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint and any other claims against it.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion for summary judgment is granted, and the third-party complaint against the appellant and all other claims asserted against it are dismissed.

The appellant Northeast Marine Terminal Co., Inc., is the lessee of premises known as the Pier on 39th Street in Brooklyn. In the early morning hours of March 31, 1982, a truck and trailer belonging to Zavitz Brothers Limited (hereinafter Zavitz) arrived at the pier. The Zavitz truck was pulling a 40 foot flatbed trailer in the middle of which a 20 foot container had been placed. At about 9:30 that morning the plaintiff, whose job it was to inspect containers brought to the pier, climbed onto the Zavitz flatbed trailer to check its container. After the plaintiff finished his inspection, and as he was about to climb off the flatbed trailer, he slipped on a grease spot located on the bed of the trailer and fell to the curb.

The plaintiff commenced the instant negligence action *527against Zavitz, which in turn, served a third-party complaint on the appellant. The appellant moved for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint and all cross claims asserted against it. The Supreme Court denied its motion. We reverse.

The appellant’s motion for summary judgment is supported by evidentiary proof in admissible form showing that the plaintiff slipped on a grease spot located on the flatbed trailer owned and controlled by Zavitz. Only the existence of a bona fide issue raised by evidentiary facts and not based on conclusory or irrelevant allegations will suffice to defeat the motion *(see,*CPLR 3212 [b]; *Rotuba Extruders v Ceppos,*46 NY2d 223). Upon a review of Zavitz’s submissions, we find that they lack evidentiary facts upon which a meritorious case against the appellant can be established. Accordingly, we find that the appellant was entitled to summary judgment. Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.
# L_2006158EN.01001301.xml

| 10.6.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 158/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 158/13

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 855/2006

of 9 June 2006

on the issue of system B export licences in the fruit and vegetables sector (lemons)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables (1),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1961/2001 of 8 October 2001 on detailed rules for implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 as regards export refunds on fruit and vegetables (2), and in particular Article 6(6) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Regulation (EC) No 557/2006 (3) fixes the indicative quantities for which system B export licences may be issued. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 557/2006 (3) fixes the indicative quantities for which system B export licences may be issued.

| (2) | In the light of the information available to the Commission today, there is a risk that the indicative quantities laid down for the current export period for lemons will shortly be exceeded. This overrun will prejudice the proper working of the export refund scheme in the fruit and vegetables sector. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

In the light of the information available to the Commission today, there is a risk that the indicative quantities laid down for the current export period for lemons will shortly be exceeded. This overrun will prejudice the proper working of the export refund scheme in the fruit and vegetables sector.

| (3) | To avoid this situation, applications for system B licences for lemons after 9 June 2006 should be rejected until the end of the current export period, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

To avoid this situation, applications for system B licences for lemons after 9 June 2006 should be rejected until the end of the current export period,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Applications for system B export licences for lemons submitted pursuant to Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 557/2006, export declarations for which are accepted after 9 June and before 1 July 2006, are hereby rejected.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 10 June 2006.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 9 June 2006.

For the Commission

J. L. DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 297, 21.11.1996, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 47/2003 (OJ L 7, 11.1.2003, p. 64).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 268, 9.10.2001, p. 8. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 386/2005 (OJ L 62, 9.3.2005, p. 3).

2

(3)  
  OJ L 98, 6.4.2006, p. 65.

3

---
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

The Board of Directors
Global Preferred Holdings, Inc.:


We consent to incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-88104
on Form S-8 of our report dated March 14, 2003, relating to the consolidated
balance sheet of Global Preferred Holdings, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December
31, 2002, and the related consolidated statements of income, stockholders'
equity and comprehensive income and cash flows for each of the years in the
two-year period ended December 31, 2002, which appears in the December 31, 2003
Annual Report on Form 10-K of Global Preferred Holdings, Inc. and subsidiaries.

/s/ KPMG LLP
Atlanta, Georgia
March 29, 2004
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Morris Guller, Also Known as Brian Covington, Appellant.

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Murray Mo-gel, J.), rendered on or about April 26, 1990, convicting defendant upon a plea of guilty of two counts of grand larceny in the second degree and sentencing defendant to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 2 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

We are unpersuaded that the sentence imposed was unduly harsh or severe. Taking into account, "among other things, the crime charged, the particular circumstances of the individual before the court and the purpose of a penal sanction”, we perceive no abuse of discretion warranting a reduction in sentence. *(People v Farrar,*52 NY2d 302, 305.)

Further, defendant was sentenced in accordance with his plea bargain and within statutory guidelines. "Having received the benefit of his bargain, defendant should be bound by its terms.” *(People v Felman,*141 AD2d 889, 890, *lv denied*72 NY2d 918.) Concur—Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Asch, Smith and Rubin, JJ.
EXHIBIT
31.2




AULTRA
GOLD INC.




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SARBANES-OXLEY SECTION 302




I, Rauno
Perttu, Chief Financial Officer of Aultra Gold Inc., certify that:




1. I have
reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009
of Aultra Gold Inc




2. Based
on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report;




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




4. The
issuer'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 issuer 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 issuer 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; and




(b)
Evaluated the effectiveness of the issuer'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




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




5. The
issuer's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the issuer's
auditors and the audit committee of the issuer'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 issuer'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 issuer's internal controls over financial
reporting.




Date: May
      14, 2009
              By:
              /s/ 
      Rauno
      PerttuRauno
      PerttChief
      Financial Officer
<PAGE>   1



                                                                      EXHIBIT 23


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 of Meadowbrook Insurance Group, Inc. of our report dated
March 17, 2000 relating to the consolidated financial statements, which appears
in the Annual Report to Shareholders, which is incorporated in this Annual
Report on Form 10-K. We also consent to the incorporation by reference to our
report dated March 17, 2000 relating to the financial statement schedule, which
appears in this Form 10-K


\s\ PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


Detroit, MI
March 29, 2000
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 19

- 11074 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 2:97

- cr - 00099

- WS

- B

- 10

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus MICHAEL JEROME FILES,
Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama

________________________ ( May 21, 2021 )
Before JO RDAN , JILL PRYOR and GRANT , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

USCA11 Case: 19-11074 Date Filed: 05/21/2021 Page: 1 of 22 In the district court, Michael Jerome Files requested a sentence reduction
under § 404 of the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115

- 391, 132 Stat. 5194,
5222. The district court denied the motion , concluding that he was ineligible for a

sentence reduction. Files has appealed.
When the district court denied Files’s motion, it did not have the benefit of
our decision in United States v. Jones , 962 F.3d 1290 (11th Cir. 2020). We do, and now that we do, the government has conceded that Files is eligible for a sentence
reduction under § 404 of the First Step Act. Havin g reviewed Jones and the record in this case, we accept the government’s concession, vacate the district court’s orders denying a sentence reduction, and remand for further proceedings so that the district court may decide whether to exercise its discretio n under § 404 to award
Files a sentence reduction

. See id. at 1304.
VACATED and REMANDED. USCA11 Case: 19-11074 Date Filed: 05/21/2021 Page: 2 of 2
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

68 

KA 14-01980 

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, DEJOSEPH, AND SCUDDER, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

TIMOTHY C. DEPETRIS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

 

MUSCATO, DIMILLO & VONA, LLP, LOCKPORT (GEORGE V.C. MUSCATO OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

MICHAEL J. VIOLANTE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, LOCKPORT (THOMAS H. BRANDT OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Niagara County Court (Sara S.

Farkas, J.), rendered June 30, 2014. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted murder in the second

degree, assault in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon

in the second degree (three counts), criminal use of a firearm in the

first degree and criminal trespass in the second degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him

upon his plea of guilty of, inter alia, attempted murder in the second

degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 125.25 [1]). Contrary to defendant’s

contention, County Court did not abuse its discretion in denying his

motion to withdraw his plea of guilty. Although the record

establishes that defendant had attempted to commit suicide while

incarcerated three weeks before the plea, that he was taking

prescribed antidepressants, and that he was emotionally upset during

the plea proceedings, we reject his contention that his mental health

condition prevented him from understanding the proceedings and

entering a knowing and voluntary plea (see People v Wilson, 117 AD3d

1476, 1477; see also People v Alexander, 97 NY2d 482, 485-486). In

denying the motion, the court acknowledged that defendant was

depressed when he entered the plea, in part because he was placed in

isolation after allegedly plotting three murders from the jail, but it

nevertheless determined that defendant’s plea was knowing and

voluntary. There is no basis to disturb that determination. We

conclude that the court “conducted an inquiry that ‘was sufficient to

ensure that the plea was voluntary’ ” (People v Zuliani, 68 AD3d 1731,

1732, lv denied 14 NY3d 894). The record establishes that defendant

understood the proceedings; that he declined the court’s offer to

change any of his responses; that his medication did not affect his
-2- 68 

KA 14-01980 

ability to understand the proceedings; and that he admitted the

factual basis for each count of the indictment before pleading guilty. 

Although defendant initially denied that he attempted to kill the

victim, after he consulted with counsel, he admitted that he did so. 

Thus, the record belies defendant’s contention that he was confused

and did not understand the consequences of the plea (see People v

Williams, 103 AD3d 1128, 1129, lv denied 21 NY3d 915).

Entered: February 5, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
# Attendee Report Webinar Name Appliance Standards Rulemaking Advisory Actual Start Date/Time Aug 05, 2014 08:24 AM EDT

First Name Last NameEmail CountryAddress City Industry StateOrganization Zip Code Mark Ames mames@ashrae.org US 1828 L Street NW WashingtonOther DC ASHRAE 20036 Rick Hanger rick.hanger@state.co.usUS 1313 Sherman Sreet Denver CO 80203 Bert Kessler bkessler@palmharbor.co m US 15301 Spectrum Dr Addison TX 75001 Michael Lubliner lublinerm@energy.wsu.e du US 905 Plum St Olympia Education WA WSU Energy Program 98504 Vrushali Mendon vrushali.mendon@pnl.go v US 902 Battelle Blvd. Richland WA 99352 Caija Owens cowens@nahb.org US 1201 15th St NW washingtonManufacturing DC NAHB 20005 Bryan Rocky bryan.rocky@jci.com US 3110 North Mead Street Wichita Manufacturing KS Johnson Controls Inc 67219 Peter Schneiderpschneider@veic.org US 128 Lakeside Ave Burlington Energy, Chemical, Utilities VT Efficiency Vermont/VEIC 05401 Don Surrena dsurrena@nahb.org US 1201 15th St NW WashingtonOther DC National Association of Home Builders 20005

Michael Woodford mwoodford@ahrinet.orgUS 2111 Wilson Blvd., Suite # 500 Arlington Manufacturing VA AHRI 22201 anthony roy aroy@earthadvantage.or g US 623 SW Oak Portland OR 97204
# L_2007061EN.01005602.xml

| 28.2.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 61/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.2.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 61/56

---

Corrigendum to Commission Directive 2006/63/CE of 14 July 2006 amending Annexes II and VII to Council Directive 98/57/EC on the control of Ralstonia solanacearum (Smith) Yabuchi et al.

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 206 of 27 July 2006
  )

In the contents and in the title on page 36:

for:

‘Commission Directive 2006/63/CE ...’,

read:

‘Commission Directive 2006/63/EC ...’.

---
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANDRE PAUL PROVOST, Jr.,

Petitioner

- Appellant,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL

REVENUE,

Respondent

- Appellee. N o. 19

- 70685

Tax Ct. No. 23943

- 18

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from a Decision of the

United States Tax Court

Submitted June 2 , 2020 * *

Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BENNETT , Circuit Judges.

Andrew Paul Provost, Jr., appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s order

dismissing for lack of jurisdiction his petition regarding his tax liabilities for the

2005 tax year. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review de

novo the Tax Court’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. Gorospe v. Comm’r , 451

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Provost’s request for oral

argument, set forth in his opening brief, is denied. 

# FILED

JUN 12 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 19

- 70685

F.3d 966, 968 (9th Cir. 2006). We affirm.

The Tax Court properly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over Provost’s

petition because the Internal Revenue Service’s Notice CP504 that formed the

basis for Provost’s petition was not a notice of deficiency or a notice of

determination. See 26 U.S.C . § 6212 (notice of deficiency); 26 U.S.C. § 6330

(notice of determination); Gorospe , 451 F.3d at 968 (the Tax Court is a court of

limited jurisdiction, and its subject matter is defined by Title 26 of the United

States Code).

We reject as without merit Provost’s contention that the CP504 notice was

illegitimate.

AFFIRMED.