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


<ARTICLE>                        5
<RESTATED>
       
<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                  JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                    DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                            1,594,000
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     1,704,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                        120,000
<INVENTORY>                                       6,278,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  9,914,000
<PP&E>                                            3,801,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                     (832,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   14,177,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             3,198,000
<BONDS>                                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                            182,000
<OTHER-SE>                                        1,912,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     14,177,000
<SALES>                                           3,959,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  3,959,000
<CGS>                                             2,330,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     2,330,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  3,313,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                2,976,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                           0
<INCOME-TAX>                                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (4,660,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   (1,376,000)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (6,036,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          (.38)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          (.38)
        


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1093 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1093

For the relief of Jose Alberto Martinez Moreno, Micaela Lopez Martinez, 
                         and Adilene Martinez.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 27, 2015

Mrs. Feinstein introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
For the relief of Jose Alberto Martinez Moreno, Micaela Lopez Martinez, 
                         and Adilene Martinez.

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

SECTION 1. ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for 
the purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et 
seq.), Jose Alberto Martinez Moreno, Micaela Lopez Martinez, and 
Adilene Martinez shall each be deemed to have been lawfully admitted 
to, and remained in, the United States, and shall be eligible for 
adjustment of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for 
permanent residence under section 245 of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255) upon filing an application for such 
adjustment of status.
    (b) Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsection (a) shall apply 
only if the application for adjustment of status is filed with 
appropriate fees not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
    (c) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Numbers.--Upon the granting of 
permanent resident status to Jose Alberto Martinez Moreno, Micaela 
Lopez Martinez, and Adilene Martinez, the Secretary of State shall 
instruct the proper officer to reduce by 3, during the current or 
subsequent fiscal year, the total number of immigrant visas that are 
made available to natives of the country of birth of Jose Alberto 
Martinez Moreno, Micaela Lopez Martinez, and Adilene Martinez under 
section 202(e) or 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
U.S.C. 1152(e) and 1153(a)), as applicable.
    (d) PAYGO.--The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of 
complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, shall be 
determined by reference to the latest statement titled ``Budgetary 
Effects of PAYGO Legislation'' for this Act, submitted for printing in 
the Congressional Record by the Chairman of the Senate Budget 
Committee, provided that such statement has been submitted prior to the 
vote on passage.
                                 <all>
```
#### Dorothy M. Real, Respondent, v Town of Huntington et al., Appellants.

— In a negligence action to recover damages *117for personal injuries, (1) the defendant Town of Huntington appeals (a) from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (McCarthy, J.), entered October 6, 1989, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, and (b), as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the same court, dated November 15, 1989, as, upon renewal, adhered to the original determination, and (2) the defendant St. Hugh of Lincoln Roman Catholic Church appeals from an order of the same court, dated November 15, 1989, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the appeal from the order entered October 6, 1989 is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order dated November 15, 1989, made upon renewal; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated November 15, 1989, made upon renewal, is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, the order entered October 6, 1989, is vacated, the motion for summary judgment is granted, and the complaint is dismissed insofar as it is asserted against the appellant Town of Huntington; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated November 15, 1989, which denied the motion of St. Hugh of Lincoln Roman Catholic Church for summary judgment is reversed, on the law, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed insofar as it is asserted against the appellant St. Hugh of Lincoln Roman Catholic Church; and it is further,

Ordered that the appellants are awarded one bill of costs.

The evidence establishes that although the defendant Town of Huntington maintained proper records, it had no actual written notice of the defect in a sidewalk which was the alleged cause of the plaintiff’s injuries. Any failure on the part of the Town to maintain the tree, the expansion of whose roots apparently caused the defect, cannot be considered affirmative negligence so as to remove this case from the scope of the statute requiring actual written notice *(see,*Town Law § 65-a; *see also, Zash v County of Nassau,*171 AD2d 743; *Monteleone v Incorporated Vil. of Floral Park,*74 NY2d 917). Further, since the plaintiff failed to show that the codefendant adjoining landowner benefited from the sidewalk in a way " 'not connected with [its] public use’ ” *(Allen v Weiss,*279 App Div 91, 95), the adjoining landowner’s motion for summary judgment is also granted. Bracken, J. P., Fiber, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32          CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                         AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFCIER
            PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the quarterly Report of TheraBiogen, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
we, Kelly T. Hickel, Chief Executive Officer and Robert Hipple, Manager of
CF Consulting, LLC, principal financial officer, certify pursuant to 18
U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 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.

December 5, 2008

/s/ Kelly T. Hickel
--------------------------------------
Kelly T. Hickel
Chief Executive Officer

/s/ Robert Hipple
--------------------------------------
Robert Hipple, Manager
CF Consulting, LLC
Principal Financial Officer
#### Wilks v. Tiner

20138

2/20/98

Vacated and Remanded
Exhibit 99.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       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 Premier Development & Investment,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Victoria Z. Carlton, Treasurer and Secretary 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 presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of this
10th day of November, 2003.



/s/ Victoria Z. Carlton
-------------------------------
Victoria Z. Carlton
Treasurer and Secretary
Premier Development & Investment, Inc.
# C_2010100EN.01003401.xml

| 17.4.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 100/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.4.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 100/34

---

Order of the President of the Third Chamber of the Court of 15 January 2010 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof, Germany) — Sylvia Bienek v Condor Flugdienst GmbH

(Case C-525/08) (1)

1

2010/C 100/49

Language of the case: German

Language of the case: German

The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 55, 7.3.2009.

1

---
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GAIL ROSIER, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

JEFFREY STROBEL, 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 15-15091

D.C. No. 2:14-cv-01399-JJT

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

John Joseph Tuchi, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 15, 2017**

San Francisco, California

Before: CANBY, SILER,*** and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

The contract and tort claims alleged by Gail Rosier in this diversity action 

arise out of the attempts by her ex-husband, Jeffrey Strobel, to collect child support

 

* 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).

*** The Honorable Eugene E. Siler, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court 

of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.

FILED

FEB 17 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

and out of statements made by Strobel in New Hampshire and Arizona state court 

proceedings. The district court dismissed the complaint, finding the contract claims 

precluded by a New Hampshire state court judgment and the remaining claims 

premised on statements for which Strobel enjoys immunity. We affirm.

1. Rosier’s contract claims arise from a child support agreement between her 

and Strobel. Upon Strobel’s motion, a New Hampshire trial court enforced the 

agreement, ordering Rosier to make funds available for the education of the couple’s 

son. The court later found Rosier in contempt of that order, and ordered her to pay

child support arrearages. Applying New Hampshire law, see Holcombe v. Hosmer, 

477 F.3d 1094, 1097 (9th Cir. 2007), the district court correctly found Rosier’s

contract claims in this case precluded because they “could have been litigated” in 

that proceeding. In re Hampers, 97 A.3d 1106, 1112–13 (N.H. 2014) (quoting Gray 

v. Kelly, 13 A.3d 848, 851 (N.H. 2010)); see also Osman v. Gagnon, 876 A.2d 193, 

195 (N.H. 2005).

2. Rosier’s tort claims arise from Strobel’s statements to the New Hampshire 

court during the proceedings described above and his statements to an Arizona court 

regarding Rosier’s sentencing for an unrelated crime. These statements are 

privileged from civil liability because they were “made in the course of judicial 
3 

proceedings” and “pertinent or relevant to the proceedings.” Provencher v. BuzzellPlourde Assocs., 711 A.2d 251, 255 (N.H. 1998); see also Green Acres Tr. v. 

London, 688 P.2d 617, 620–22 (Ariz. 1984). And, because Strobel’s statements 

were privileged, the district court did not err in denying Rosier leave to amend her 

complaint to add a claim for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 

relating to those statements.1

AFFIRMED.

 

1

In any event, Rule 11 sanctions are sought by motion, not as part of a 

complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(2).
Blueprint








 








 


Exhibit
10.71


 


September
6, 2016


 


Via
Electronic Mail


 


Jeff
Wilson


 


Dear
Jeff:


 


It is
my pleasure to offer you a position with Visualant, Inc. as Vice
President, Business Development. Your offer of employment consists
of the following:


.




●

You are being hired
as the Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer of the
Company with your start date to commence upon the Board of
Director’s approval of your appointment.








●

You will report to
the Chief Executive Officer and collaborate with Todd Sames EVP
Business Development and Interim Chief Operating
Officer.








●

Your annual salary
will be $180,000.00, paid over twenty-four [24] pay
periods.








●

Initially, your
position will be approximately two thirds time. During this period
you will be paid at two thirds of the full time salary level set
forth above.








●

You will receive
options shares of the Company’s common stock pursuant to the
terms and conditions of the Employee Stock Option Plan in an amount
to be determined. The options shall be priced at a price to be set
based upon an offering price of the stock which is yet to be
determined.








●

You will
participate in an executive bonus program to be
determined.








●

You will be
eligible for coverage under the Visualant health and dental
insurance programs at the parent or subsidiary level.








●

You will receive
120 hours [15 days] per year of Paid Time Off [PTO], which will
accrue at 5 hours per pay period. In the event your employment
terminates before you have accrued all the PTO you have actually
used, you agree that the Company may withhold and deduct from your
final paycheck the pay associated with the PTO days used, but not
accrued. Your PTO will be ratably reduced during your part-time
employment.








●

As we grow as a
company, many of the attributes of normal company benefits,
including 401K will be established.






 


This
offer letter is not a contract of employment for any specific or
minimum term. The employment Visualant, Inc. offers you is
terminable at will. This means that our employment relationship is
voluntary and based on mutual consent. You may resign your
employment, and Visualant, Inc. likewise may terminate your
employment, at any time, for any reason, with or without cause with
thirty days’ notice.


 


 



 







 






Jeff
Wilson


Page
2


September 6,
2016


 


 


Your
signature below signifies your acceptance of this offer of
employment.


 


We look
forward to you becoming a part of our Visualant team, and are
excited about the contributions you will make to the success of
Visualant, Inc. You may contact me with any questions you may have
concerning this letter.


 


Sincerely,


 


/s/ Ron
Erickson


 


Ron
Erickson


Chief
Executive Officer


 


 


Accepted
this _____day of __________, 2016


 


 


/s/
Jeff Wilson


_________________


Jeff
Wilson


 


 


 


 





____________________________________________________________________



500 Union Street | Suite 406 | Seattle, WA 98101


Tel:
206.903.1351 | Fax: 206.903.1352
steam

_ record - Fw: Mississippi Power Compan y - ICR Extension Request

-----Forwarded by Jezebele Alicea/DC/USEPA/US on 07/02/2010 08:11PM -----

To: Jezebele Alicea/DC/USEPA/US@EPA From: "Berry, Charles Rick (M PC)" <CRBERRY@southernco.com> Date: 06/29/2010 06:28PM cc: "Hill, Flinda R." <FRHILL@southernco.com >, "Hill, Donna B." <DBHILL@southernco.com> Subject: Mississippi Power Co mpany - ICR Extension Request

Ms. Alicea, Please find attached a request for a deadline extension for the completion and submittal of the Steam Electric Guidelines Information Collection Request for Mississippi Power. I trust you will find it complete as well as compelling. Feel free to contact us should you require additional information.

Rick Berry Manager, Environmental Quality Mississippi Power Company 10406 Lorraine Road
P.O. Box 4079 Gulfport, Mississippi 39502-4097
Tel: 228.897.6420 From: <Alicea.Jezebele @ epamail.epa. g ov> To: <steam_record@erg.c om>, <jordan.ronald@epa.gov> Date: 7/2/2010 7:12 PM Sub j ect: Fw: Mississippi Power Company - ICR Extension Reques t Attachments: DOC001.pdf Pa g e 1 of 1

3/21/2011 file://C:\Documents and Settin g s\TMedle y \Local Settin g s\Tem p \XP g r p wise\4C2E3A39D

...
# C_2009082EN.01000801.xml

| 4.4.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 82/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 5 February 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-282/08) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2005/38/EC - Unfair commercial practices - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

(2009/C 82/14)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: W. Roels and W. Wils, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: C. Schiltz, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to adopt or notify, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

| 2. | Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 209, 15.8.2008.

1

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7136

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus SHARON P. MICKLE, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CR-91-44) Submitted: September 29, 2000 Decided: October 19, 2000 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sharon P. Mickle, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Ann Colombell, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Mickle raised issues before this court that were not raised below. We generally do not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal. See Hormel v. Helvering , 312 U.S. 552, 556 (1941); Grossman v. Comm’r , 182 F.3d 275, 280-81 (4th Cir. 1999); Skipper v. French, 130 F.3d 603, 610 (4th Cir. 1997). Moreover, the additional issues raised by Mickle are not properly addressed in a 18 U.S.C. § 3582 motion. 2 PER CURIAM: Sharon P. Mickle appeals the district court’s order denying her 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (1994) motion for resentencing. * We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Mickle , No. CR-91-44 (E.D. Va. July 19, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 117 (Thursday, August 2, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Page S5974]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                        ENROLLED BILL PRESENTED

  The Secretary of the Senate reported that on today, August 2, 2012, 
she had presented to the President of the United States the following 
enrolled bills:

       S. 679. An Act to reduce the number of executive positions 
     subject to Senate confirmation.
       S. 1959. An Act to require a report on the designation of 
     the Haqqani Network as a foreign terrorist organization and 
     for other purposes.

                          ____________________
```