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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM US INDUSTRIAL
SERVICES, INC.  FORM 10-KSB FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN IT'S ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       2,349,491
<SECURITIES>                                   410,400
<RECEIVABLES>                               14,722,153
<ALLOWANCES>                                   275,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            24,914,986
<PP&E>                                       9,048,759
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,457,082
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              35,512,589
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       19,841,529
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        87,640
<OTHER-SE>                                  11,984,843
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                35,512,589
<SALES>                                     58,324,519
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            58,324,519
<CGS>                                       44,291,727
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               44,291,727
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            12,942,472
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,130,138
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (85,948)
<INCOME-TAX>                               (3,842,116)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,756,168
<DISCONTINUED>                                 644,764
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 4,400,932
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.07
        


</TABLE>
**COURT OF APPEALS**

**TENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS**

****

October 22, 2015

No. 10-15-00101-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF J.T., A CHILD

From the 74th District Court

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013-2639-3

**JUDGMENT**

	This Court has reviewed the briefs of Ashley Tindall and the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services and the record in this proceeding as relevant to the issues raised and finds no reversible error has been presented.  This Court has also considered the *Anders* brief and the record as relevant to William Kent.  It is the judgment of this Court that the trial court’s judgment signed on March 3, 2015 is affirmed.

	It is further ordered that the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services is awarded judgment against William Kent and Ashley Tindall jointly and severally for the appellate costs that were paid, if any, by the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services; and all unpaid appellate court costs, if any, are taxed against William Kent and Ashley Tindall.

A copy of this judgment will be certified by the Clerk of this Court and delivered to the trial court clerk for enforcement.

						PER CURIAM

****SHARRI ROESSLER, CLERK			

		     By: ___________________________

			     Nita Whitener, Deputy Clerk

# image1.png

# image2.png

# image3.jpeg
#### State v. Pulse

16726

10/14/96

Denied

83 Hawai'i 229, 925 P.2d 797
# C_2019295EN.01002701.xml

| 2.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 July 2019 — VY v Commission

(Case T-253/18) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Middle management post - Rejection of application - Vacancy notice - Selection procedure - Obligation to state reasons - Equality between men and women)

(2019/C 295/34)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: VY (represented by: J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Berscheid and L. Vernier, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 270 TFEU seeking the annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s application and the decision appointing another candidate to the post of Head of Unit within a European Union delegation.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders VY to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders VY to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 240, 9.7.2018.

---
CTR Performance Grants

file:///G|/...0pdf%20and%20put%20in%20FDMS/Appendix%208%20Commute%20Trip%20Reduction/CTR%20Performance%20Grants.htm[1/29/2010 2:30:02 PM]

» King County Transit

Trip Planner

» Puget Sound Traffic

Flow Map

» RideshareOnline.com

» Washington State

Ferries

Enlarge

• TDM Success Stories

• PT&CO Staff

• Counties/Jurisdictions

• Puget Sound TDM

• Office of Transit

Mobility

• CTR Task Force

• Services

• Rail

• Special Needs

Transportation

• Office of Transit

Mobility

• Transit

• Public Transportation

Conference

CTR Performance Grants

The Washington State Legislature created a trip reduction performance program in 2003

to encourage entrepreneurs, private companies, transit system, cities, and non-profit

organizations to provide services to employees that result in fewer vehicle trips arriving

at worksites.

The new program fosters innovation by paying winning proposals for the trips they

reduce and by reimbursing start-up costs—up to fifty percent of the awarded funds.

Unlike many grant programs, however, the balance of amount awarded to each winning

project will be distributed based on performance, as documented in surveys taken

before and after the projects.

2003–2005 projects under the CTR Performance Grant Program

Overview of original program and results of 2004–2005 grants. This presentation

was made at the Public Transportation and Rail Conference, August 2005.

Winners of round 1, April 2004

Winners of round 2, June 2004

Planning for 2005–2007 projects

The trip reduction performance program has been funded at $1.5 M for the 2005–2007

biennium. Contingent on October 3–4 approval of new regulations, a modified program

—to be called the CTR Trip Reduction Performance Program, or TRPP——will move

forward with a new call for proposals.

TRPP projects will differ from the 2003–2005 grants awarded under the CTR

Performance Grants Program. The modified program will allow for longer project

timelines and more flexible processes for measuring performance. Information about the

modified program will be available here soon. In the meantime, you may refer to

materials documenting the redesign process.

DRAFT schedule for the Trip Reduction Performance Program

Date Event

October 24–28 Training sessions

November 18 Applications due

January 4, 2006 Winnning projects announced

Questions about the Trip Reduction Performance Program ? Contact the Public

Transportation and Commute Options Office.

 Copyright WSDOT © 2006 Traffic & Roads | Site Index | Contact WSDOT | WSDOT Business | WSDOT Home
EXHIBIT 32.0

                      DIRECT INSITE CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                                 CERTIFICATIONS



Certificate 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 Direct Insite Corp.,  (the "Company")
on Form  10-QSB for the  quarter  ending  September  30,  2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, James
Cannavino,  Chief Executive  Officer,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  1350, as
adopted pursuant to 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 result of operations of the Company.

Date: December 9, 2003

                                          /s/ James Cannavino
                                          -----------------------
                                          James Cannavino
                                          Chief Executive Officer

<PAGE>
DIRECT INSITE CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES



           Certificate 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 Direct Insite Corp.,  (the "Company")
on Form  10-QSB for the  quarter  ending  September  30,  2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, George
Aronson,  Secretary,  and  Chief  Financial  Officer  of the  Company,  certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 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 result of operations of the Company.

Date: December 9, 2003

                                        /s/ George Aronson
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        George Aronson
                                        Secretary,  and Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

     We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Experts" in the
Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-92906) pertaining to the Second Amended
and Restated 1992 Stock Option Plan and to the incorporation by reference
therein of our report dated March 12, 1997 with respect to the consolidated
financial statements of Standard Management International S.A. included in the
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1996 of Standard
Management Corporation filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Luxembourg, March 18, 1997

KPMG Audit

                                  [COPY WHITE]
EXHIBIT 99.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                         PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
                              AS ADOPTED PURUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Annual Report of CCC GlobalCom Corporation on form 10-KSB
for the period  ending  December  31,  2002,  as filed with the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof,  I, Paul E. Licata,  Chief  Executive
Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss.  1350,  as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of
my knowledge and belief:

     (1) the Report  complies with the  requirements of section 13 (a) or 15 (d)
         of the Securities Exchange act of 1934; and

     (2) the  information  in  the  Report  fairly  presents,  in  all  material
         respects,  the  financial  condition  and result of  operations  of the
         Company.


By  /s/  Paul E. Licata
-----------------------
Paul E. Licata
Chief Executive Officer
April 15, 2003
#### State v. Pascua

18710

4/29/97

Affirmed
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 29, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
134395 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 134395 COA: 274815 Macomb CC: 03-002203-FC JEFFREY L. MCCUTCHEON, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 1, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishing ent itlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

s1022 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 29, 2007

Clerk
October 2, 2015

Mr. Timothy C. Walkey

Advanced Motion Design

156 Kripple Kreek Drive

Sharpsburg, GA 30277

Dear Mr. Walkey :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can n o t Process Your Request

We received your July 14, 2015 exemption request on behalf of Advanced Motion Design

filed in D ocket No

. FAA− 20 15

− 2927 , but we are unable to process your request any further.

Your petition does no t comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to

consider the reques t any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information re lating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html . This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal

Aviation A dministration (FAA) requirement outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any

questions you may have.2

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption

at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267

- 2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure s34
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 42 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 42

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                      January 22, 2015.
    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider in the House the bill (H.R. 7) to prohibit taxpayer funded abortions. 
All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall 
be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill are 
waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on 
any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) 
one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the Majority Leader and 
Minority Leader or their respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
November 19, 1996

17717

#### Giannetto v. Ryan

Order No. 96-28

Affirmed
### TEXAS COUR T OF APPEALS, THIRD DIST RICT, AT AUSTIN

44444444444

4444444 NO. 03-06-00101-CV 44444444444

4444444 In re Leve l 3 Comm unications, Inc. and Lev el 3 Com municat ions, LLC
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY M E M O R A N

D U M O P

I N I O N Relators Level

3 C om mu ni cat io ns, Inc. , an d Lev el 3 Co mm uni cat io ns, LL C, filed thi s petition for writ of mandamus. We deny the petition for writ of mandamus.
Bob Pemberton, Justice Before Chief Justice Law , Justices Pemberton and Waldrop Filed: March 20, 2006
#### State v. Marushige

15078

1/10/92

Denied
Exhibit 14.1

                              TAA Lease Extension


                               AMENDMENT TO LEASE

                            TUCSON AIRPORT AUTHORITY
                                      AND
                     HAMILTON AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
                                (MAIN FACILITY)


          This Amendment to Lease is entered into this ___ day of February 2006,
by and between Tucson Airport Authority, Inc., an Arizona nonprofit corporation
("TAA"), and Hamilton Aerospace Technologies, Inc. ("Tenant").

          A. TAA and Tenant previously entered into that certain Lease effective
March 23, 2005 (the "Lease") with respect to certain premises located on Tucson
International Airport.

          C. Tenant and TAA desire to amend the Lease to extend the terms of the
lease and modify the rent obligations.

          NOT THEREFORE the parties hereby agree as follows:

     1. Term. The term of the Lease, which is set forth in Section 2.1 of the
Lease, is modified to be as follows: The Term of the Lease shall extend from the
Commencement Date as set forth in the Lease, through February 28, 2007.

     2. Rent. Commencing on March 1, 2006, the rent due pursuant to Section 3.1
of the Sublease shall be 318,228.37 per year, payable as set forth therein, in
equal monthly installments.

Except as modified herein, the Lease is unchanged and shall remain in full force
and effect.

TAA:                                            TENANT:

TUCSON AIRPORT AUTHORITY, INC.                  HAMILTON AEROSPACE
an Arizona nonprofit corporation                TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware
                                                corporation


By:  /s/  Bonnie A. Allin                       By:  /s/
     -----------------------------                   ---------------------------
     Bonnie a. Allin, A.A.E.                    Name:
     President/CEO                              Title:  Director
Date:  March ?, 2006                            Date:  Feb. 20, 2006
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION 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 MISONIX, INC. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q  for  the  period  ending  March  31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard Zaremba, Chief
Financial  Officer  of  the  Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted  pursuant  to  ss.  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 represents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
          the  Company.

/s/  Richard  Zaremba
---------------------
Richard  Zaremba
Vice  President, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary
May 6, 2004




A  signed  original  of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears  in  typed  form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to MISONIX, INC. and will be retained
by  MISONIX, INC. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff  upon  request.


                                       31
<PAGE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KATHLEEN M. WATSON, as an individual, and on behalf of all others similarly situated ; BARTON M. WATSON, as an individual,

Plaintiffs

- Appellants,

v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC., a Delaware corporation,

Defendant

- Appellee. No. 17

- 15890

D.C. No. 1:16

- cv
- 00400

- LEK

- KJM

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii Leslie E. Kobayashi, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 16, 2018 **

Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Kathleen M. Watson and Barton M. Watson appeal from the district court’ s
judgment dismissing their action alleging federal and state law claims arising from

* 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). 

# FILED

JAN 19 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 17

- 15890

defendant’s baggage policy

. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291

. We

review for an abuse of discretion a denial of leave to amend a complaint. S ee
Serra v. Lappin , 600 F.3d 1191, 1195 (9th Cir. 2010)

. We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the Watson’s
complaint without leave to amend because the deficiencies of the complaint could
not be cured by amendment

. See id. at 1200 ( l eave to amend may be denied where

amendment would be f

utile )

.
T he district court did not abuse its discretion in not converting defendant’s

motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment b ecause the district court
did not rely on materials outside of the pleadings. See Davis v. HSBC Bank Nev

. ,
N.A. , 691 F.3d 1152, 11 59

- 60 (9th Cir. 2012) (standard of review); Keams v

. Tempe Tech

. Inst
., Inc

. , 110 F

. 3d 44 , 46 ( 9 th Cir

. 1997 ) ( a motion to dismiss need
not be converted into a motion for summary judgment when nothing in the record

suggest s reliance by the district court on materials that are outside of the
pleadings ).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal , or matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening

brief

. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2009).3 17

- 15890

We rejec t as unsupported by the record the Watson’s contention s that the
district court applied the incorrect law regarding t heir breach of contract claim and
ignored claims related to the third class action members

.
AFFIRMED.
# C_2019131EN.01001702.xml

| 8.4.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 131/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 131/17

---

Appeal brought on 11 September 2018 by Petrus Kerstens against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 26 June 2018 in Case T-757/17 Kerstens v Commission

(Case C-577/18 P)

(2019/C 131/21)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Petrus Kerstens (represented by: C. Mourato, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

By order of 22 January 2019, the Court (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal.

---
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED MARCH 31, 2020

NO. 03-19-00910-CV

S. J., Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 146TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES BAKER AND TRIANA

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE TRIANA

This is an appeal from the order and decree of termination signed by the trial court on November 

20, 2019. Having reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was 

no reversible error in the trial court’s order. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s order.

Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.