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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                             526
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,574
<ALLOWANCES>                                       110
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                15,092
<PP&E>                                           6,230
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,161
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  22,965
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,642
<BONDS>                                          7,122
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,331
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,639
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    22,965
<SALES>                                          2,556
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                47,325
<CGS>                                            2,410
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   26,398
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                15,485
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 182
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,273
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,250
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,023
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,023
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.66
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.40
        

</TABLE>
# C_2023327EN.01000501.xml

| 15.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 327/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 327/5

---

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

SA.104781

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2023/C 327/04)

| Date of adoption of the decision | 4.8.2023 |
| --- | --- |
| Aid number | SA.104781 |
| Member State | Hungary |
| Region | |
| Title (title and/or name of the beneficiary) | Scheme on excise duty exemptions and refunds for fuel used in railway and inland waterway transportation 2023-2029 |
| Legal basis | A jövedéki adóról szóló 2016. évi LXVIII. törvény 112. § (1) bekezdés b) pontja és a 113. § (1) bekezdése |
| Type of measure | Scheme |
| Objective | Coordination of transport |
| Form of aid | Tax advantage or tax exemption |
| Budget | Overall budget: 214 200 000 |
| Intensity | |
| Duration | 1.5.2023 — 30.4.2029 |
| Economic sectors | Inland passenger water transport, Inland freight water transport, Freight rail transport, Passenger rail transport, interurban, Other passenger land transport |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Pénzügyminisztérium |
| 1051 Budapest, József nádor tér 2-4. |

Date of adoption of the decision

4.8.2023

Aid number

SA.104781

Member State

Hungary

Region

Title (title and/or name of the beneficiary)

Scheme on excise duty exemptions and refunds for fuel used in railway and inland waterway transportation 2023-2029

Legal basis

A jövedéki adóról szóló 2016. évi LXVIII. törvény 112. § (1) bekezdés b) pontja és a 113. § (1) bekezdése

Type of measure

Scheme

Objective

Coordination of transport

Form of aid

Tax advantage or tax exemption

Budget

Overall budget: 214 200 000

Intensity

Duration

1.5.2023 — 30.4.2029

Economic sectors

Inland passenger water transport, Inland freight water transport, Freight rail transport, Passenger rail transport, interurban, Other passenger land transport

Name and address of the granting authority

Pénzügyminisztérium

1051 Budapest, József nádor tér 2-4.

Other information

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

https://competition-cases.ec.europa.eu/search?caseInstrument=SA

---
EXHIBIT 31(a)

I, Thomas M. Patrick, certify that:

1)	I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Peoples Energy Corporation;

2)	Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3)	Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4)	The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a)	Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)	Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c)	Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5)	The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)	All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b)	Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

 

Date: December 11, 2003

/s/ Thomas M. Patrick
# Official Journal C 88/2009

| | ISSN 1725-2423
  doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2009.088.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 88 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5217 April 2009 |

ISSN 1725-2423

doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2009.088.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 88

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5217 April 2009

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES |
| | Commission |
| 2009/C 088/01 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty Cases where the Commission raises no objections (1) | 1 |
| 2009/C 088/02 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (1) | 5 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

Commission

2009/C 088/01

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty Cases where the Commission raises no objections (1)

1

2009/C 088/02

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (1)

5

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES |
| | Commission |
| 2009/C 088/03 | Euro exchange rates | 6 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

Commission

2009/C 088/03

Euro exchange rates

6

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMPETITION POLICY |
| | Commission |
| 2009/C 088/04 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5487 — VOITH/RWEI/JV) Candidate case for simplified procedure (1) | 7 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMPETITION POLICY

Commission

2009/C 088/04

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5487 — VOITH/RWEI/JV) Candidate case for simplified procedure (1)

7

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
#### SMALL v. STATE.

No. 18930.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 14, 1937.

Hamilton & Fitzgerald, of Memphis, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

The conviction is for the unlawful possession of whisky upon which the state tax had not been paid; penalty assessed at a fine of $10.

The prosecution is based upon a complaint and information charging the possession of a bottle of whisky to which there was not affixed a stamp showing the payment of the tax due to the State of Texas and to which bottle .there was not affixed an affidavit showing that said whisky had been withdrawn from a tax'-paid container.

Three peace officers saw the appellant at the Pounds Cafe in the city of Memphis on the night of December 6, 1935. The appellant was drunk and abusive and was trying to take a drink in the café. He was brought out of the café and a bottle of whisky taken from his hip pocket. He was then taken to the city jail.

The bottle of whisky taken from the apel-lant was introduced in evidence upon the trial. One of the officers testified that there was a government stamp on the bottle of whisky but there was no stamp or anything showing that the state tax had been paid.

The appellant did not testify, nor did he introduce any testimony upon the trial.

Appellant excepted to the fourth paragraph of the court’s charge, which instructed the jury as follows: “In all criminal cases the defendant is permitted by law to testify in his own behalf, but his failure to. do so must not be considered by the jury as any evidence against him. The defendant in this case having failed to testify, you are instructed that you cannot consider such failure to testify as any evidence against him and you positively must not discuss such failure or even refer to or consider the same.”

The particular complaint raised is that the portion of the charge which reads, “The defendant in this case having failed to testify, etc., ” insinuates a culpable omission on the part of the appellant and conveys the impression that he should have testified upon the trial. We think the contention is untenable. The language used by the court is substantially the same as that embraced in the statute, article 710, C. C. P. This is exemplified by many references by Mr. Branch in his Ann.Tex.P.C., page 211, section 377.

In a special requested charge the appellant sought to make complaint of the following remarks of the prosecuting attorney:

> *53“Is there a stamp on the affidavit showing that it was from a tax paid container on the bottle ?

> “Is there a tax stamp on the bottle? I leave it to you to decide.”

The remarks quoted are not regarded as .justifying a reversal of the judgment. In fact, the impropriety of them is not perceived.

The judgment is affirmed.
# C_2023186EN.01000401.xml

| 26.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 186/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 186/4

---

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

SA.106802

(2023/C 186/03)

| Date of adoption of the decision | 14.4.2023 |
| --- | --- |
| Aid number | SA.106802 |
| Member State | France |
| Region | |
| Title (title and/or name of the beneficiary) | TCTF: Dispositif de soutien aux entreprises de pêche pour faire face à l’augmentation des prix des matières premières et notamment de l’énergie liée à l’agression de la Russie contre l’Ukraine (modification du régime SA.102839 (2022/N)) |
| Legal basis | Décret et arrêté mettant en place le dispositif de soutien aux entreprises de pêche pour faire face à l’augmentation des prix des matières premières et notamment de l’énergie liée à l’agression de la Russie contre l’Ukraine |
| Type of measure | Scheme |
| Objective | Remedy for a serious disturbance in the economy |
| Form of aid | Direct grant |
| Budget | Overall budget: 30 000 000 EUR |
| Intensity | |
| Duration | Until 31.12.2023 |
| Economic sectors | Fishing and aquaculture |
| Name and address of the granting authority | DGAMPA |
| Tour Séquoia 1 place Carpeaux 92055 La Défense CEDEX |

Date of adoption of the decision

14.4.2023

Aid number

SA.106802

Member State

France

Region

Title (title and/or name of the beneficiary)

TCTF: Dispositif de soutien aux entreprises de pêche pour faire face à l’augmentation des prix des matières premières et notamment de l’énergie liée à l’agression de la Russie contre l’Ukraine (modification du régime SA.102839 (2022/N))

Legal basis

Décret et arrêté mettant en place le dispositif de soutien aux entreprises de pêche pour faire face à l’augmentation des prix des matières premières et notamment de l’énergie liée à l’agression de la Russie contre l’Ukraine

Type of measure

Scheme

Objective

Remedy for a serious disturbance in the economy

Form of aid

Direct grant

Budget

Overall budget: 30 000 000 EUR

Intensity

Duration

Until 31.12.2023

Economic sectors

Fishing and aquaculture

Name and address of the granting authority

DGAMPA

Tour Séquoia 1 place Carpeaux 92055 La Défense CEDEX

Other information

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

https://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm

---
# C_2022168EN.01000701.xml

| 22.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 168/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/7

---

Notice for the attention of the persons subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2013/184/CFSP, as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/669, and in Council Regulation (EU) No 401/2013, as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/662 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Myanmar/Burma

(2022/C 168/06)

The following information is brought to the attention of the persons that appear in Annex I to Council Decision 2013/184/CFSP (1), as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/669 (2), and in Annex IV to Council Regulation (EU) No 401/2013 (3), as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/662 (4) concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Myanmar/Burma.

The Council of the European Union, after having reviewed the list of designated persons, has decided that the persons that appear in the above-mentioned Annexes should continue to be included in the list of persons subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Decision 2013/184/CFSP and Regulation (EU) No 401/2013 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Myanmar/Burma. The grounds for the listing of the persons concerned appear in the relevant entries in those Annexes.

The attention of the persons concerned is drawn to the possibility of making an application to the competent authorities of the relevant Member State(s) as indicated on the websites referred to in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 401/2013 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Myanmar/Burma, in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments (cf. Article 4b of the Regulation).

The persons concerned may submit a request to the Council, together with supporting documentation, that the decision to include them on the above-mentioned lists should be reconsidered. Any such request should be sent to the following address before 1 February 2023:

| Council of the European Union |
| --- |
| General Secretariat |
| RELEX.1 |
| Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175 |
| 1048 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

RELEX.1

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu

Any observations received will be taken into account for the purpose of the Council’s periodic review, in accordance with Article 12 of Decision 2013/184/CFSP and Article 4i(4) of Regulation (EU) No 401/2013.

The attention of the persons concerned is also drawn to the possibility of challenging the Council’s decision before the General Court of the European Union, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 275, second paragraph, and Article 263, fourth and sixth paragraphs, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ L 111, 23.4.2013, p. 75.

(2)  OJ L 121, 22.4.2022, p. 45.

(3)  OJ L 121, 3.5.2013, p. 1.

(4)  OJ L 121, 22.4.2022, p. 1.

---
EXHIBIT 32.1    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 Commodore Applied Technologies, Inc., (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Shelby T. Brewer, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Executive 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 results of operations of Commodore Applied Technologies, Inc.    /s/Dr. Shelby T. Brewer DATE:  November 14, 2007 Dr. Shelby T. Brewer, Chief Executive Officer   A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Commodore Applied Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by Commodore Applied Technologies, Inc. to be furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.                     1
#### GOSE v. STATE.

No. 16611.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 4, 1934.

Marshall *&*Perkins, of Quanah, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

CHRISTIAN,, Judge.

The offense is theft; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for three years.

J. W. Keene owed a note on his farm. He delivered a check payable to appellant in the sum of $896.67 to some one in appellant’s office. Appellant told him to carry the check to his office and that he would send it to the loan company. The cheek was never received by the company, the testimony on the part of the state being to the effect that appellant cashed the check and converted the proceeds to his own use and benefit.

The state was permitted to introduce in evidence, over appellant’s objection, several letters written on a typewriter and signed “E. E. Gose.” These letters were in the nature of an admission on the part of the writer that he had taken the money delivered to him 'by the injured party and appropriated it to his own use. They showed the writer was promising to repay the money he had taken. The bills of exception show that there was no proof that appellant signed the letters and that they were admitted in evidence simply because they had been received by the injured , party through .the mail, and were signed in appellant’s name. This testimony was inadmissible. The fact that the letters were received in the regular course of the mail was not alone sufficient to permit'their introduction in evidence. It was incumbent upon the state to show that appellant signed the letters or authorized his name to be signed to them. Taylor v. State, 50 Tex. Cr. R. 381, 97 S. W. 474, 475.

Under the proof the only theory upon which the prosecution could have been sustained was that, at the time appellant obtained the money, he did so with intent to appropriate it to his own use. It was admitted that he obtained it with the consent of the owner. The court should have limited the consideration of the jury to this phase of the case only. On the contrary, the case was *422submitted to the jury upon the theory that appellant took the money from the possession of the injured party without his consent. This charge was inaccurate. Sander’s v. State, 38 Tex. Cr. R. 343, 42 S. W. 983.

Upon another trial the court should require the state to prove that the indorsement on the check was in appellant’s handwriting or had been authorized by him before admitting such indorsement in evidence. Appellant did not receive the check in person, it being delivered to some one in his office.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

PER OURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.
#### In re Estate of Hoffman: Hoffman, Admr., Appellant, *v.*Weingard et al., Appellees.

(No. 28795

Decided November 19, 1941.)

*Mr. Mitchell Wilby,*for appellant.

*Mr. Clarence Deiming*and *Messrs. LeBlond, Morrissey, Terry S Gilday,*for appellees.

It is ordered and adjudged that this appeal as of right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason that no debatable constitutional question is involved.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Turner, Williams, Matthias, Hart, Zimmerman and Bettman, JJ., concur.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

January 19, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
130310 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. JAMES D. AZZAR, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellant, Justices
and

PROCESSING SOLUTIONS, LIMITED, Plaintiff,

v SC: 130310 COA: 260438 Kent CC: 03-011760-NZ CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS, Defendant-Appellee,

and

BERNARD C. SCHAEFER, and ROBERT J. KRUIS, Defendants.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, leave to appeal having been granted and the briefs and oral arguments of the parties having been considered by the Court, we VA CATE our order of May 4, 2006. The application for leave to appeal the September 22, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals is DENIED, because we are no longer persuaded that the questions presented should be rev iewed by this Court.

s0116 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.

January 19, 2007

Clerk