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

<ARTICLE>                  5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
COMPANY'S  FORM 10-QSB FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS  QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>              12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                      DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                         JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                           DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                                   4,488,854
<SECURITIES>                                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            1,324,248
<ALLOWANCES>                                                92,700
<INVENTORY>                                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         5,868,636
<PP&E>                                                   2,417,100
<DEPRECIATION>                                           1,570,800
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                           6,871,983
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    1,268,458
<BONDS>                                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                            0
<PREFERRED>                                                  1,704
<COMMON>                                                    14,951
<OTHER-SE>                                               5,310,192
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                             6,871,983
<SALES>                                                  1,774,109
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         1,774,109
<CGS>                                                      186,125
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            7,689,243
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                          41,121
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                         (5,925,591)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                     (5,925,591)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                  0
<CHANGES>                                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                            (5,925,591)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                (2.57)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                (2.57)


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 118 (Friday, August 3, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1435]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                       A TRIBUTE TO TYLER HANSON

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. TOM LATHAM

                                of iowa

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, August 2, 2012

  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate 
Tyler Hanson of Sergeant Bluff, Iowa for achieving the rank of Eagle 
Scout.
   The Eagle Scout rank is the highest advancement rank in scouting. 
Only about five percent of Boy Scouts earn the Eagle Scout Award. The 
award is a performance-based achievement with high standards that have 
been well-maintained over the past century.
   To earn the Eagle Scout rank, a Boy Scout is obligated to pass 
specific tests that are organized by requirements and merit badges, as 
well as completing an Eagle Project to benefit the community. For his 
project, Tyler planned, organized, and painted badly faded curbs, light 
poles and parking lines at his local church. His project also included 
adding handicap accessible parking spaces in accordance with the 
Americans with Disabilities Act. The work ethic Tyler has shown in his 
Eagle Project, and every other project leading up to his Eagle Scout 
rank, speaks volumes of his commitment to serving a cause greater than 
himself and assisting his community.
   Mr. Speaker, the example set by this young man and his supportive 
family demonstrates the rewards of hard work, dedication and 
perseverance. I am honored to represent Tyler and his family in the 
United States Congress. I know that all of my colleagues in the House 
will join me in congratulating him in obtaining the Eagle Scout 
ranking, and will wish him continued success in his future education 
and career.

                          ____________________
```
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Young Ham, certifythat:

 

1. I have reviewed thisquarterly report on Form 10-Q of Liquidmetal Technologies, Inc.;

 

2. Based on my knowledge,this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;

 

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

 

4. The registrant’s othercertifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

 

a) designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisquarterly report is being prepared;

 

b) evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures as of adate within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the “EvaluationDate”); and

 

c) presented in thisquarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

 

5. The registrant’s othercertifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation,to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

 

a) all significantdeficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which couldadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial data and have identified for the registrant’s auditors anymaterial weaknesses in internal controls; and

 

b) any fraud, whether ornot material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal controls; and

 

6. The registrant’s othercertifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether ornot there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factorsthat could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of ourmost recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard tosignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

 

 
| Date: August 30,  2005 | /s/ Young Ham                                 |   |
|-----------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|--------|
|                        | Young Ham                                     |
|                        | Chief Financial Officer                       |
|                        | (Principal Financial  and Accounting Officer) |

 

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

WESTERN DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Respondent 

 v. 

WELDON FELLS, 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 13 WAL 2016 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 20th day of April, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
| 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  August 14, 2012    | By:    | /s/ Frank C. Ingriselli     |
|----------------------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------|
|                                               |   | Frank C. Ingriselli         |
|                                               |   | President, CEO and          |
|                                               |   | Principal Executive Officer |

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-27-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-29-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-27-1997
<CASH>                                             919
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,529
<ALLOWANCES>                                       100
<INVENTORY>                                      4,071
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                10,196
<PP&E>                                          11,628
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,083
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  16,634
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,103
<BONDS>                                          2,547
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             3
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    16,634
<SALES>                                        119,776
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               119,776
<CGS>                                          114,604
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  114,604
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,422
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   100
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 655
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     95
<INCOME-TAX>                                        72
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        23
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01
        

</TABLE>
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 2013 - 0642 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 2011 - SW - 035 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. No 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, lis t latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR- M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch M anager**  **Date**
#### George Bustin, Appellant, v Miriam Bustin, Respondent.

Mikoll, J.

Appeal (transferred to this court by order of the Appellate Division, Second Department) from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Di Fede, J.H.O.), entered May 29, 1990 in Putnam County, which, *inter alia,*denied plaintiff’s motion to modify his maintenance payments to defendant.

Plaintiff and defendant were married in New York in 1941 and secured a divorce in Mexico in October 1986. A prior separation agreement was incorporated with, but not merged into, the divorce judgment. Under this agreement plaintiff agreed, *inter alia,*to pay defendant maintenance of $100 per week for the rest of their joint lives as well as hospitalization insurance. Plaintiff subsequently obtained an order to show cause seeking a downward modification of his maintenance obligation on the ground of change of circumstances. Defendant cross-moved for arrears and Supreme Court ordered a hearing. After testimony was taken at a hearing, Supreme Court denied the motion and cross motion, ruling that although there had been a change in the circumstances of the parties, the change was not sufficient to reduce maintenance payments. This appeal by plaintiff ensued.

Plaintiff’s argument that Supreme Court erred in failing to consider the increase in defendant’s assets, enabling her to now support herself, is without merit. It was incumbent upon plaintiff to demonstrate that "extreme hardship” would result if the support was not reduced rather than showing only a "substantial change in circumstance[s]” (Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [9] [b]; *see, Matter of Cohen v Seletsky,*142 AD2d 111, 117-120; *Heath v Heath,*128 AD2d 587). Plaintiff has not made the required showing.

The evidence demonstrates that plaintiff’s annual income is *482approximately $33,000 less expenses of approximately $32,000, including entertainment, gifts, health and automobile insurance and payments to his second wife. Additionally, his assets include one half of $89,500 in home equity, a 1987 automobile and one half of $10,000 in savings. The other half of his home equity and savings belong to his second wife. Significantly, the $5,000 he voluntarily pays to his second wife is not fixed by any judgment and may be changed. While defendant’s assets appear sufficient to meet her financial needs at this time, this was but one of the financial circumstances to be considered and need not, of itself, be determinative *(see, Cantlin v Cantlin,*126 AD2d 594, 597).

The decision of Supreme Court is amply supported by the evidence and we find no reason to disturb it based on the record before us. If plaintiff’s situation materially changes he may, at that time, again seek a modification of his maintenance obligation.

Casey, J. P., Weiss, Crew III and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
<PAGE>

                                                                     Exhibit 24


                                    POWER OF ATTORNEY

     Each person whose signature appears below constitutes and appoints 
CHARLES A. NICKOLOFF and JOY A. SOLOMON as his true and lawful 
attorney-in-fact and agent, each acting alone, with the full power of 
substitution and resubstitution, for him and in his name, place and stead, in 
any and all capacities, to sign the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal 
year ended December 31, 1996 for IVI Publishing, Inc. and any and all 
amendments to such Form 10-K and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, 
and other documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange 
Commission, granting unto said attorneys-in-fact and agents, each acting 
alone, full power and authority to do and perform each and every act and 
thing requisite and necessary to be done in connection with the Form 10-K, as 
fully to all intents and purposes as he might or could do in person, hereby 
ratifying and confirming all said attorneys-in-fact and agents, each acting 
alone, or his substitute, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue 
thereof.



/s/ Joy A. Solomon                                       2/19/97
---------------------------------                ------------------------
Joy A. Solomon                                        Date Signed


/s/ Alan D. Frazier                                      3/12/97
---------------------------------                ------------------------
Alan D. Frazier                                       Date Signed

/s/ Ronald E. Eibensteiner                               3/7/97
---------------------------------                ------------------------
Ronald E. Eibensteiner                                Date Signed

/s/ Timothy I. Maudlin                                  3/11/97
---------------------------------                ------------------------
Timothy I. Maudlin                                    Date Signed

/s/ Charles A. Nickoloff                                2/19/97
---------------------------------                ------------------------
Charles A. Nickoloff                                  Date Signed

/s/ Nicholas C. Bluhm                                   3/13/97
---------------------------------                ------------------------
Nicholas C. Bluhm                                     Date Signed
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 5 (Monday, January 8, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 984]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-00141]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Notice of Intent To Rule on Request To Release Airport Property 
at the Grand Junction Regional Airport, Grand Junction, Colorado

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of request to release airport property.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rule and invite public comment on the 
release of a 21.81 acre parcel of land at the Grand Junction Regional 
Airport.

DATES: Comments are due within 30 days of the date of the publication 
of this notice in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Emailed comments can be provided to Mr. John Sweeney, 
Community Planner, Denver Airports District Office, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#dbb1b4b3b5f5a8acbebeb5bea29bbdbabaf5bcb4ad"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d9b3b6b1b7f7aaaebcbcb7bca099bfb8b8f7beb6af">[email protected]</span></a>, (303) 342-1263.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Angela Padalecki, Executive 
Director, Grand Junction Regional Airport, 2828 Walker Field Drive, 
Grand Junction, CO 81506, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ef8e9f8e8b8e838a8c8486af88858e869d9f809d9bc18c8082"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0766776663666b62646c6e47606d666e75776875732964686a">[email protected]</span></a>, (970) 244-9100; or 
Mr. John Sweeney, Community Planner, Denver Airports District Office, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#117b7e797f3f626674747f7468517770703f767e67"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b1dbded9df9fc2c6d4d4dfd4c8f1d7d0d09fd6dec7">[email protected]</span></a>, (303) 342-1263. Documents reflecting this FAA 
action may be reviewed at the above locations.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA invites public comment on the 
request to release property at the Grand Junction Regional Airport 
under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 47107(h)(2). The proposal consists of 
21.81 acres of land located on the West side of the airport, shown as 
27\1/4\ Road on the Airport Layout Plan. The parcel traverses the West 
side of the airport along the relocated 27\1/4\ Road. The FAA concurs 
that the parcel is no longer needed for airport purposes. The proposed 
use of this property is compatible with existing airport operations in 
accordance with FAA's Policy and Procedures Concerning the Use of 
Airport Revenue, as published in the Federal Register on February 16, 
1999.

    Issued in Denver, Colorado, on December 20, 2023.
John P. Bauer,
Manager, Denver Airports District Office.
[FR Doc. 2024-00141 Filed 1-5-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 13 October 2009 – Deutsche Rockwool Mineralwoll v OHIM – Redrock
Construction (REDROCK)**

**(Case T-146/08)**

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark REDROCK – Earlier national word mark Rock – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now, Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services
– Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 41-47, 86-89)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 February 2008 (Case R 506/2007-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Deutsche Rockwool Mineralwoll GmbH & Co. OHG and Redrock Construction s.r.o. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | Redrock Construction s.r.o. |
| Community trade mark sought: | Figurative mark REDROCK for goods and services in Classes 1, 2, 17, 19, 36 and 37 – Application No 3866365 |
| Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: | Deutsche Rockwool Mineralwoll Gmbh & Co. OHG |
| Mark or sign cited in opposition: | German word mark Rock for goods and services in Classes 1, 6 to 8, 17, 19, 37 and 42 (No 30229274), the opposition being directed at registration in all classes except Class 36 |
| Decision of the Opposition Division: | Opposition allowed and application refused in part |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Contested decision annulled and opposition dismissed |

**Operative part**

The Court:

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Deutsche Rockwool Mineralwoll GmbH & Co. OHG to bear its own costs and to pay three quarters of the costs incurred by Redrock Construction s.r.o.; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 3. | | Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to bear its own costs and to pay one quarter of the costs incurred by Redrock Construction s.r.o. |