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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000908401
<NAME>                        Glyko Biomedical, Ltd.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     US Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1.000
<CASH>                                         210,992
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  156,176
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    68,452
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               461,645
<PP&E>                                         563,516
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (455,471)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 571,890
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          868,765
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       12,203,065
<OTHER-SE>                                     (12,499,940)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   571,890
<SALES>                                        1,271,933
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1,330,635
<CGS>                                          509,248
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1,425,484
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               1,014,966
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,575,859)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,575,859)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,575,859)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.10)
        


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-1484

XUE TUAN YAN,

Petitioner,

versus

JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. (A70-697-040)

Submitted: November 10, 2004 Decided: November 23, 2004

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Christophe, CHRISTOPHE & ASSOCIATES, P.C., New York, New

York, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney

General, Douglas E. Ginsburg, Senior Litigation Counsel,

Jonathan F. Potter, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Xue Tuan Yan, a native and citizen of the People’s

Republic of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of

Immigration Appeals (Board) denying his third motion to reopen. We

have reviewed the record and deny the petition for review. 

We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of

discretion by the Board. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2004); INS v.

Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992); Stewart v. INS, 181 F.3d 587,

595 (4th Cir. 1999). The denial of a motion to reopen must be

reviewed with extreme deference, since immigration statutes do not

contemplate such motions and the applicable regulations disfavor

them. M.A. v. INS, 899 F.2d 304, 308 (4th Cir. 1990) (en banc).

We have reviewed the administrative record and the Board’s decision

and find no abuse of discretion.

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
# C_2008116EN.01001501.xml

| 9.5.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 116/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.5.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 116/15

---

Action brought on 6 March 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-105/08)

(2008/C 116/26)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by R. Lyal and M. Afonso, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Portuguese Republic

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | A declaration that, by taxing payment of interest abroad more heavily than payment of interest to entities resident in Portuguese territory, the Portuguese Republic imposes restrictions on the provision of mortgage and other loan services by financial institutions resident in other Member States and in States party to the EEA Agreement, and it has therefore failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 49 EC and 56 EC and Articles 36 and 40 of the EEA Agreement; |
| --- | --- |

—

A declaration that, by taxing payment of interest abroad more heavily than payment of interest to entities resident in Portuguese territory, the Portuguese Republic imposes restrictions on the provision of mortgage and other loan services by financial institutions resident in other Member States and in States party to the EEA Agreement, and it has therefore failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 49 EC and 56 EC and Articles 36 and 40 of the EEA Agreement;

| — | an order that the Portuguese Republic should pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

an order that the Portuguese Republic should pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Código do Imposto sobre o Rendimento das Pessoas Colectivas (CIRC) (the Corporation Tax Code) provides for different tax treatment of income relating to interest paid to financial institutions, depending on whether they are resident or not in Portuguese territory.

The taxation applicable in Portugal to interest paid to non-resident financial institutions leads to a far heavier real tax burden than that borne by resident taxpayers in respect of similar income. The national legislation thus dissuades non-resident financial institutions from offering their services on the Portuguese market, in particular mortgage loan services, and prevents persons resident in Portugal from gaining access to the loan services that might be offered them by those institutions. Such legislation therefore constitutes a restriction of the fundamental freedoms enshrined in Articles 49 EC and 56 EC and in the corresponding provisions of the EEA Agreement.

---
Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed September 14, 2021.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-21-00305-CV

JERLENE BATISTE, Appellant

V.

CARLA ARMAUND; KINGWOOD PINES HOSPITAL, LLC; RAYMOND 

BATISTE; AND JERRI SETHNA, MD, Appellees

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 1

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1153306-102

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an appeal from a judgment signed April 21, 2021. The notice of appeal 

was filed June 2, 2021. 

No clerk’s record has been filed. The clerk responsible for preparing the 

record in this appeal informed the court that the appellant did not make arrangements 

to pay for the record. On July 27, 2021, the court notified all parties of the court’s 
2

intention to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless, within fifteen days, 

the appellant made arrangements to pay for the record and provided this court with 

proof of payment. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b). No such proof has been filed.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c) (allowing 

involuntary dismissal of case because appellant failed to comply with notice from 

clerk requiring response or other action within specified time).

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Hassan and Poissant.
<PAGE>   1


                                                                 Exhibit 24.2

                               POWER OF ATTORNEY

         KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that the undersigned director and/or
officer of ANTEC Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the "Corporation"), which
is about to file an annual report pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, on Form 10-K, hereby constitutes
and appoints Lawrence A. Margolis, Mark J. Scagliuso and James E. Knox and each
of them his or her true and lawful attorney-in-fact and agent, with full power
and all capacities, to sign the Corporation's Form 10-K and any and all
amendments thereto, and any other documents in connection therewith, to be
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, granting unto said
attorneys-in-fact and agents full power and authority to do and perform each
and every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done in and about the
premises, as fully to all intents and purposes as she or he might or could do
in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact
agents or their substitutes may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue
hereof.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has hereunto set his or her hand
and seal as of the 16th day of March, 1999.


                                                            /s/ JOHN R. PETTY
                                                            -----------------
                                                                John R. Petty
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED OCTOBER 14, 2015

NO. 03-14-00556-CV

Texan Pearl, LLC, Appellant

v.

Victoria Koegel, Joseph W. Koegel, Sarah Evans, and Thomas Evans, Appellees

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES GOODWIN AND FIELD

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on June 18, 2014. Having reviewed 

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the 

trial court’s judgment. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment. The appellant 

shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1096 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1096

            For the relief of Joseph Gabra and Sharon Kamel.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   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 Joseph Gabra and Sharon Kamel.

    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.), Joseph Gabra and Sharon Kamel 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 Joseph Gabra and Sharon Kamel, the 
Secretary of State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 2, 
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 Joseph Gabra and Sharon Kamel under section 203(a) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)) or, if applicable, 
the total number of immigrant visas that are made available to natives 
of the country of birth of Joseph Gabra and Sharon Kamel under section 
202(e) of that Act (8 U.S.C. 1152(e)).
    (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>
```
#### In the Matter of James Leyden, Petitioner, v Board of Education of the North Merrick Union Free School District et al., Respondents.

— Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Board of Education of the North Merrick Union Free School District, dated March 28, 1989, which, after a hearing, dismissed the petitioner from his employment as a custodian.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioner contends that his employment was terminated for excessive absence, primarily resulting from his alcoholism, in violation of Executive Law §§ 296 and 292. The record sufficiently demonstrates, however, that the petitioner was discharged for misconduct arising out of five incidents of theft of services, in addition to his failure to report to work for 15 full days and five half days, and not because of a disability *(see, Dicocco v Capital Area Community Health Plan,*135 AD2d 308). Additionally, the petitioner conceded that only some of his absences were alcohol related and further admitted that some of his absences for illness were not legitimate. Bracken, J. P., Eiber, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.
# C_2008079EN.01002201.xml

| 29.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 79/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 79/22

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Regeringsrätten (Sweden) lodged on 25 January 2008 — Skatteverket v AB SKF

(Case C-29/08)

(2008/C 79/37)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Regeringsrätten

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Skatteverket

Applicant:

Defendant: AB SKF

Defendant:

Questions referred

| 1. | Are Articles 2 and 4 of the Sixth VAT Directive and Articles 2 and 9 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system for value added tax to be interpreted as meaning that, where a taxable person liable for tax on sales of services to a subsidiary sells the interests in the subsidiary, that transaction is subject to VAT? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are Articles 2 and 4 of the Sixth VAT Directive and Articles 2 and 9 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system for value added tax to be interpreted as meaning that, where a taxable person liable for tax on sales of services to a subsidiary sells the interests in the subsidiary, that transaction is subject to VAT?

| 2. | If the answer to the first question is that the sale constitutes a taxable transaction, is it then covered by the exemption from taxation relating to interests in companies under Article 13B(d)(5) of the Sixth VAT Directive and Article 135(1)(f) of Council Directive on a common system of value added tax? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the first question is that the sale constitutes a taxable transaction, is it then covered by the exemption from taxation relating to interests in companies under Article 13B(d)(5) of the Sixth VAT Directive and Article 135(1)(f) of Council Directive on a common system of value added tax?

| 3. | Irrespective of the answer to the above questions, can there be a right to deduct for expenditure directly attributable to the sale, in the same way as there is for general expenses? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Irrespective of the answer to the above questions, can there be a right to deduct for expenditure directly attributable to the sale, in the same way as there is for general expenses?

| 4 | Is it of significance for the answers to the above questions if the sale of interests in a subsidiary takes place in stages? |
| --- | --- |

4

Is it of significance for the answers to the above questions if the sale of interests in a subsidiary takes place in stages?

---
19298

#### State v. Brunson

March 25, 1997

Order No. 97-30

Affirmed
<PAGE>

Exhibit 32

      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT


In connection with the Report of Amaru, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB/A
for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we, Colin Binny President (Chief
Executive Officer) and Bee Leng Ho, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
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.



                                 /s/ Colin Binny
                                 -----------------------
                                 President
                                 December 28, 2006


                                 /s/ Bee Leng Ho
                                 -----------------------
                                 Chief Financial Officer
                                 December 28, 2006
IIB 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4406 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 6, 2018 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 99 Macombs Place in New York, New York, 

as the ‘‘Tuskegee Airmen Post Office Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 4406 RFS

1 SECTION 1. TUSKEGEE AIRMEN POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

2 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

3 Postal Service located at 99 Macombs Place in New York, 

4 New York, shall be known and designated as the 

5 ‘‘Tuskegee Airmen Post Office Building’’. 

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

8 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

9 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Tuskegee Airmen Post 

10 Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives March 5, 

2018. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
##### 



Exhibit 32

Pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United
States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Potash
Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. (the Company),
does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:

The annual report on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 2003 (the Form 10-K),
of the Company fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and information contained in the Form 10-K fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.

Dated: March 11, 2004

| |                                                                                                                                                                
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | /s/ WILLIAM J. DOYLE 
     _______________________________________ 
     William J. Doyle President and Chief Executive Officer                                
|
| | Dated: March 11, 2004                                                                                                                                          
| | /s/ WAYNE R. BROWNLEE 
     _______________________________________ 
     Wayne R. Brownlee Senior Vice President, Treasurer, and 
     Chief Financial Officer



| |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | The foregoing certification is being furnished as
    an exhibit to the Form 10-K pursuant to
    Item 601(6)(32) of Regulation S-K, section 906 of
    the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a)
    and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of
    Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not
    being filed as part of the Form 10-K.