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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEULDE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED
BALANCE SHEETS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH UNAUDITED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1998
<CASH>                                           1,228
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   20,057
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          10,345
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,880
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 314,224
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                         18,330
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      5,396
<COMMON>                                             5
<OTHER-SE>                                       5,754
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   314,224
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                82,251
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   85,088
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              22,087
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,837)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,020
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,817)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,817)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (4.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (4.01)
        

</TABLE>
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 58 (Wednesday, March 26, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 16854]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-06640]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and 
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart B 
(Formerly Subpart Q) During the Week Ending March 8, 2014

    The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience 
and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart 
B (formerly Subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural 
Regulations (See 14 CFR 301.201 et. seq.). The due date for Answers, 
Conforming Applications, or Motions to Modify Scope are set forth below 
for each application. Following the Answer period DOT may process the 
application by expedited procedures. Such procedures may consist of the 
adoption of a show-cause order, a tentative order, or in appropriate 
cases a final order without further proceedings.
    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2005-22228 and DOT-OST-2011-0076.
    Date Filed: March 6, 2014.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify 
Scope: March 27, 2014.
    Description: Application of JetBlue Airways Corporation requesting 
renewal of its certificate of public convenience and necessity to 
operate scheduled combination service between the United States, from 
Boston, MA (BOS), Fort Lauderdale, FL (FLL), New York, NY (JFK) and 
Orlando, FL (MCO), on the one hand, and Cancun, Mexico (CUN), on the 
other hand.

Barbara J. Hairston,
Supervisory Dockets Officer, Docket Operations, Federal Register 
Liaison.
[FR Doc. 2014-06640 Filed 3-25-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
```
# C_2009141EN.01002101.xml

| 20.6.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 141/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 141/21

---

Order of the Court of 20 January 2009 — Jörn Sack v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-38/08 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Civil service - Remuneration - Non-application of the increment provided for heads of unit to a legal adviser of grade A*14 - Principle of equal treatment)

2009/C 141/36

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Jörn Sack (represented by: D. Mahlo, Rechtsanwalt)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Wägenbaur and J. Currall, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 11 December 2007 in Case T-66/05 Sack v Commission, by which the Court of First Instance rejected the application for the annulment of the decisions relating to the setting of the applicant’s monthly salary for the period from May 2004 to February 2005, application for that salary to be recalculated and application for the annulment of the decision expressly rejecting the applicant’s complaint — Non-application of the increment provided for heads of unit to a legal adviser of grade A*14 in the Commission’s legal service responsible for the coordination of a working group — Infringement of the principle of equal treatment.

Sack

Commission

Operative part

Operative part

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed;

| 2. | Mr Sack shall bear his own costs and pay the costs incurred by the Commission of the European Communities. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Sack shall bear his own costs and pay the costs incurred by the Commission of the European Communities.

---

(1)  OJ C 107, 26.4.2008.

1

---
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 113 (Thursday, July 26, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1339]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

       IN CELEBRATION OF MRS. BUENA WOOTEN LONG'S 100TH BIRTHDAY

                                 ______
                                 

                      HON. SANFORD D. BISHOP, JR.

                               of georgia

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, July 26, 2012

  Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend my 
sincerest congratulations and Happy Birthday wishes to Mrs. Buena 
Wooten Long, who will be celebrating her 100th birthday on Wednesday, 
July 25, 2012. On this day, Mrs. Long will be honored with a birthday 
celebration and dinner at the James H. Gray Senior Citizen's Center in 
Albany, Georgia.
  Born in Whigham, Georgia on July 25, 1912 to Archie and Ada Wooten, 
Mrs. Long is the youngest of six children: Malachi, Charlie, Wadis, 
Leah, and Ruth. Although all her siblings preceded her in death, she is 
the second member of her family to become a centenarian; her paternal 
grandfather lived to be 106 years old.
  Mrs. Long fondly remembers plowing a mule on the family farm as a 
child. As an adult, she worked as a seamstress in Philadelphia, 
Pennsylvania and Detroit, Michigan. She is now an active participant at 
the Golden Retreat Senior Citizen's Center. Although she enjoys all the 
activities at the Center, bingo is her favorite.
  Mrs. Long is the mother of Mrs. Helen Murphy-Prince; grandmother of 
Mr. Craig Wendell Prince; great-grandmother of Mr. Randall Murphy and 
Mr. Brian Murphy and great-greatgrandmother of Miss London Taylor 
Murphy.
  Mrs. Long credits her longevity to her faith in God, a strong work 
ethic instilled in her by her parents and good genes. She is an active 
member of the Institutional First Baptist Church under the pastorate of 
Dr. Eugene G. Sherman.
  George Washington Carver once said, ``How far you go in life depends 
on your being tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, 
sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of the weak and strong 
because someday in your life you will have been all of these.'' Mrs. 
Long has advanced far in life because she never forgot these lessons 
and always kept God first.
  The race of life isn't given to the swift or to the strong, but to 
those who endure until the end. Mrs. Long has run the race of life with 
grace and dignity and God has blessed her over her lifetime.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me today in paying tribute 
to an outstanding citizen and woman of faith, Mrs. Buena Wooten Long, 
as she, her family, and the seniors and volunteers of the Golden 
Retreat at the James H. Gray Senior Citizen's Center prepare to 
celebrate her 100th birthday.

                          ____________________
```
# C_2008171EN.01001301.xml

| 5.7.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/13

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 3 April 2008 — Janko Rottmann v Freistaat Bayern

(Case C-135/08)

(2008/C 171/22)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Janko Rottmann

Applicant:

Defendant: Freistaat Bayern

Defendant:

Questions referred

| 1. | Does Community law preclude the legal consequence of the loss of Union citizenship (and of the associated rights and fundamental freedoms) resulting from the fact that a revocation, lawful as such under national (German) law, of a naturalisation as a national of a Member State (Germany) acquired by intentional deception has the effect, in combination with the national law on nationality of another Member State (Austria) — as with the claimant in the present case because of the non-revival of the original Austrian nationality — that statelessness supervenes? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does Community law preclude the legal consequence of the loss of Union citizenship (and of the associated rights and fundamental freedoms) resulting from the fact that a revocation, lawful as such under national (German) law, of a naturalisation as a national of a Member State (Germany) acquired by intentional deception has the effect, in combination with the national law on nationality of another Member State (Austria) — as with the claimant in the present case because of the non-revival of the original Austrian nationality — that statelessness supervenes?

| 2. | If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:
  Must the Member State (Germany) which has naturalised the citizen of the Union and now wishes to revoke the naturalisation obtained by deception, having due regard to Community law, refrain altogether or temporarily from revoking the naturalisation if or as long as revocation would have the legal consequence of loss of Union citizenship (and of the associated rights and fundamental freedoms) described in Question 1, or is the other Member State (Austria) of former nationality obliged, having due regard to Community law, to interpret and apply, or even adjust, its national law so that that legal consequence does not supervene? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:

Must the Member State (Germany) which has naturalised the citizen of the Union and now wishes to revoke the naturalisation obtained by deception, having due regard to Community law, refrain altogether or temporarily from revoking the naturalisation if or as long as revocation would have the legal consequence of loss of Union citizenship (and of the associated rights and fundamental freedoms) described in Question 1, or is the other Member State (Austria) of former nationality obliged, having due regard to Community law, to interpret and apply, or even adjust, its national law so that that legal consequence does not supervene?

---
Exhibit 10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 

FORM OF PREFERRED STOCK AGREEMENT 

ALTISOURCE ASSET MANAGEMENT CORPORATION 

The undersigned participant (the “Participant”) of the 2016 Employee Preferred Stock Plan (the “Plan”) of ALTISOURCE ASSET
MANAGEMENT CORPORATION (the “Company”), a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, hereby acknowledges receipt of              shares of Class
     Preferred Stock of the Company (“Preferred Stock”) issued pursuant to the Plan. As required under Section 7 of the Plan, the Participant hereby (i) agrees that such shares of Preferred Stock shall
be subject to, and shall be held by [him/her] in accordance with all of the applicable terms and provisions of, the Plan, and (ii) represents and warrants to the Company that [he/she] has acquired such shares of Preferred Stock for investment
for [his/her] own account, and (iii) in any event, agrees that [he/she] will not sell or otherwise dispose of said shares other than sales back to the Company upon termination of employment with the Company as required under the provisions of
Section 7.02 of the Plan. 
 The undersigned hereby executes this Preferred Stock Agreement this      day of
                    , 201    . 

 

	
	  

	[name of recipient]
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Judicial Conference of the United States

# AGENCY:

Judicial Conference of the United States.

# ACTION:

Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy Rules; notice of cancellation of open hearing.

# SUMMARY:

The following public hearing on proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure has been canceled: Bankruptcy Rules Hearing on January 19, 2024.

# DATES:

January 19, 2024.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        H. Thomas Byron III, Esq., Chief Counsel, Rules Committee Staff, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building, One Columbus Circle NE, Suite 7-300, Washington, DC 20544, Phone (202) 502-1820,                         *RulesCommittee_Secretary@ao.uscourts.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The announcement for this hearing was previously published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on August 9, 2023 at 88 FR 53917.                

(Authority: 28 U.S.C. 2073.)

Dated: December 20, 2023.

Shelly L. Cox,

Management Analyst, Rules Committee Staff.

[FR Doc. 2023-28386 Filed 12-22-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 2210-55-P
EXHIBIT
        32.2
 
 CERTIFICATION
        PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
 18
        U.S.C.
        SECTION 1350
 AS
        ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
 OF
        THE
        SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 I,
        Brad
        E. Herr, Chief Financial Officer of Command Center, Inc. (the "Company")
        do
        hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
        Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my
        knowledge:
 
 This
        Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A1 of the Company for the fiscal quarter
        ended
        September 29, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
        (the
        "report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
        of the
        Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 The
        information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects,
        the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 Date:  November
        9, 2007
 
 
 /s/Brad
        E. Herr
 Brad
        E.
        Herr
 Chief
        Financial Officer
  10-QSB/A1
              Page 23
#### Stella Wilson et al., Respondents, *v.*King Haven Holding Company, Inc., Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department,

September 25, 1959.

*1. Sidney Worthman*for appellant.

No appearance for respondents.

*Per Curiam.*

While it may be that under the circumstances of this case there was a showing of a valid excuse for the delay in prosecuting the action (cf. *Zeiger*v. *Kew Towers,*8 A D 2d 827 [2d Dept.]), the absence of an affidavit of merits by the plaintiffs required the granting of defendant’s motion to dismiss the action for lack of prosecution *(Lakowitz*v. *Marlin Gardens,*5 A D 2d 981; *Moebus*v. *Tishman Co.,*5 A D 2d 786; *Drabik*v. *Valle,*8 A D 2d 705; *Augenstein*v. *Schafran,*17 Misc 2d 179 [App. Term, 2d Dept.] ; *Gallagher*v. *Clafington, Inc.,*7 A D 2d 627) with leave, however, to the plaintiffs to move to vacate the dismissal upon proper papers *(Barnett Co.*v. *St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.,*7 A D 2d 897).

The order should be unanimously modified so as to provide that defendant’s motion to dismiss the action for lack of prosecution is granted unconditionally, with leave to the plaintiffs to move to vacate the dismissal upon proper papers, including an affidavit of merits to be furnished by the party plaintiffs; and as so modified, order affirmed, with $10 costs and taxable disbursements to the defendant.

Concur — Pette, Hart and Brown, JJ.

Order modified, etc.
#### Isacc J. HILL, Petitioner, v. Robert R. RAINES, Respondent.

No. A-13075.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Sept. 20, 1961.

Isacc J. Hill,- pro se.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty! Gen., Lewis A. Wallace, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

BUSSEY, Judge.

Petitioner, Isacc J. Hill is currently imprisoned in the State Penitentiary at Mc-Alester by virtue of a judgment and sentence rendered in the- District Court of Oklahoma County on April 12, 1961, wherein he was charged by information with the crime of robbery with firearms and was found guilty and sentenced to 99 years.

Petitioner’s first contention is that the verdict of the jury is vague and because of said vagueness is void on its face thus depriving the court of jurisdiction. We have carefully examined the certified copy of the jury verdict and find it regular in form and concise in language. This contention therefore is without merit.

Petitioner next contends that the punishment imposed by the jury is excessive. 21 O.S. § 801, provides as follows: “Any person or persons who, with'the use of any firearms or any other dangerous weapons, attempts to rob or robs any person or persons, or who robs or attempts to *174rob any place of business, residence or banking institution or any other place inhabited or attended by any person or persons at any time, either day or night, shall be guilty of a felony, and, upon conviction therefor, shall suffer punishment by death, or imprisonment, at hard labor, in the State Penitentiary, for a period of time of not less than five years, at the discretion of the Court, or the jury trying the same.” This court has repeatedly held that the question of whether a verdict is excessive is a matter to be considered only on appeal from a-final judgment, and cannot be inquired into on habeas corpus. Perry v. Waters, 97 Okl.Cr. 17, 256 P.2d 1119; Bolton v. McLeod, Okl.Cr., 294 P.2d 586, 589. For the reasons above set forth the writ is denied.

NIX, P. J., and BRETT, J., concur.
#### Ilah Porterfield et al., Appellants, v City of New York et al., Respondents.

— Order and judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.), entered on or about February 5, 1990 and April 12, 1990, respectively, granting defendants summary judgment and dismissing plaintiffs’ complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff Ilah, an assistant principal at Theodore Roosevelt High School in Bronx County, brought this action against defendants to recover damages for injuries sustained when she was sexually assaulted in an unlocked book room by an unknown armed assailant.

Contrary to plaintiffs contentions, the allegations in the complaint, as amplified in the bill of particulars and testimony before trial, do not arise from defendants’ failure to fulfill their proprietary duties but rather arise from defendants’ exercise of their governmental function *(see, Bonner v City of New York,*73 NY2d 930). Since the IAS Court had previously determined in an order dated October 28, 1987, that plaintiffs had failed to make out a claim for breach of special duty by defendants in a governmental capacity, the *788dismissal of the remaining claims in the complaint was appropriate.

We have considered plaintiff’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. *(See, McIvor v Di Benedetto,*121 AD2d 519, 522; *Freeze Right Refrig. & Air Conditioning Servs. v City of New York,*101 AD2d 175, 180.) Concur — Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Ross and Rubin, JJ.