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

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         278,035
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,874,779
<ALLOWANCES>                                   395,681
<INVENTORY>                                  3,975,443
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             9,345,203
<PP&E>                                       3,718,067
<DEPRECIATION>                                 272,930
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              77,137,622
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       10,250,467
<BONDS>                                     37,030,337
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        19,295
<OTHER-SE>                                  29,037,685
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                77,137,622
<SALES>                                     13,760,318
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            13,760,318
<CGS>                                       10,457,224
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               10,457,224
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            13,076,124
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,532,637
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (12,123,589)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,300
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (12,131,889)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (12,131,889)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.04)
        

</TABLE>
LYNN S. MOHRFELD, CAE

President & CEO

OFFICERS

CHAIR

TERRI A. HAACK

Terranea Resort

Rancho Palos Verdes

VICE CHAIR

THOMAS KLEIN

Fairmont Hotels & Resorts

San Francisco

SECRETARY/TREASURER

RICHARD HILL

Sheraton Grand Sacramento

PAST CHAIR

BIMAL PATEL, CHA

Concept Hotels

Mountain View



### Protecting the

rights and

interests of the

California lodging

industry

414 29TH STREET

SACRAMENTO, CA May 8 , 2015

The Honorable John Kerry

Secretary of State

U.S. Department of State

2201 C Street, NW

Washington, DC 20520

The Honorable Anthony Foxx

Secretary of Transportation

U.S. Department of Trans portation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590

The Honorable Penny Pritzker

Secretary of Commerce

U.S. Department of Commerce

1401 Constitution Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20230

R e: Support Open Skies

To whom it may concern:

The California Hotel & Lodging Association (CH&LA) believe s that Open Skies

agreements should be preserved as it provides many benefits to the entire U.S. travel

industry, not just their impact on a single industry.

These centers of global aviation targeted by the airline industry puts the enti re Open

Skies fram ework at risk and it could could have a serious impact on the hotel industry,

which depends on international travelers to fill a significant percentage of rooms.

More competition and more choice for travelers is unquestionably good for both American

travelers as well as for international visitors and business people who want to come to

the U.S. and do busine ss. The hotel industry relies on international visitors to the United

States for a significant percentage of its business and a s internat ional travel to the U.S.

increases, it helps grow the economy.

This new competition allows the hotel industry to attract travelers from new markets all

over the world and b y opening up new service to markets like Africa, India, the Middle

East , and Southeast Asia these airlines are helping the hotel industry receive visitors

from abroad.

I urge you not to limit the Gulf carriers' access to the United States. Preserve Open Skies.

Sincerely,

Lynn S. Mohrfeld , CAE

President & CEO
#### The State of Iowa, Appellee, v. John Till, Appellant.

Nuisance: judgment : affirmance.

*Appeal from Jones District Court.*— Hon. J. H. Preston, Judge.

Wednesday, February 10, 1892.

Indictment for maintaining a nuisance. From a judgment of conviction the defendant appealed.

Per Curiam.

The record by transcript discloses that the judgment; is upon the defendant’s plea of guilty, and without error in the proceedings. The judgment is affirmed.
**EXHIBIT23.1**

 

 

 

 

**CONSENTOF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

 

 

 

 

TheBoard of Directors

Network-1Technologies, Inc.

 

 

Wehereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 Nos. 333-140622, 333-162460, 333-186612,333-192811 and 333-193704 and on Form S-3 No. 33-190719 of our report dated March 20, 2020, with respect to the consolidated financialstatements of Network-1 Technologies, Inc. and subsidiary included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Network-1 Technologies,Inc. and subsidiary for the year ended December 31, 2019.

 

 

 

 

**/s/FRIEDMAN LLP**

NewYork, New York

March20, 2020
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 773 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 773

    To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the active 
 business definition relating to distributions of stock and securities 
                      of controlled corporations.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 13, 1999

  Mr. Breaux introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the active 
 business definition relating to distributions of stock and securities 
                      of controlled corporations.

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

SECTION 1. MODIFICATION OF ACTIVE BUSINESS DEFINITION.

    (a) In General.--Section 355(b)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 (defining active conduct of a trade or business) is amended by 
adding at the end the following: ``For purposes of subparagraph (A), 
all corporations that are members of the same affiliated group (as 
defined in section 1504(a)) shall be treated as a single corporation.''
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to distributions or transfers after the date of the enactment of this 
Act.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 17 (Friday, January 25, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 5423]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-01734]

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

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m., Friday February 22, 2013.

PLACE: 1155 21st St. NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission 
Conference Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance and Enforcement Matters. I the 
event that the times or dates of these or any future meetings change, 
an announcement of the change, along with the new time and place of the 
meeting will be posted on the Commission's Web site at http://www.cftc.gov

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Melissa Jurgens, 202-418-5516.

Stacy D. Yochum,
Counsel to the Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 2013-01734 Filed 1-23-13; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
```
<PAGE>

                                                                     Exhibit 4.8

                                [ARAMARK LOGO]

                              ARAMARK Corporation

                                 COMMON STOCK

      Number                                            Shares

THIS CERTIFICATE IS TRANSFERABLE IN          SEE REVERSE FOR CERTAIN DEFINITIONS
NEW YORK, N.Y. AND RIDGEFIELD PARK, N.J.     CUSIP [_][_][_][_][_][_] [_][_] [_]
             INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

This certifies that:

is the owner of


                  FULLY PAID AND NON-ASSESABLE SHARES OF THE
                  COMMON STOCK, PAR VALUE $.01 PER SHARE, OF

ARAMARK Corporation transferable on the books of the Corporation by the holder
hereof in person or by duly authorized attorney upon surrender of this
Certificate properly endorsed. This Certificate is not valid until countersigned
and registered by the Transfer Agent and Registrar.

     Witness the facsimile seal of the Corporation and the facsimile signatures
of its duly authorized officers.

Dated:

                                         [ARAMARK Corporation seal appears here]
                                             COUNTERSIGNED AND REGISTERED:
                                                 MELLON INVESTOR SERVICES LLC
                                                                  TRANSFER AGENT
                                                                   AND REGISTRAR

                                                   BY


/s/ Bart J. Colli       /s/ Joseph Neubauer
SECRETARY               CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD               AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE
RB

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0699

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

KAITLYN REBECCA HOLMES,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 45-day extension of time, 

and good cause appearing therefor,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is granted an extension of time 

to and including October 20, 2023, within which to prepare, file, and serve its 

response brief.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 29 2023

08/29/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0699
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 439

To amend the National Forest and Public Lands of Nevada Enhancement

Act of 1988 to adjust the boundary of the Toiyabe National Forest, Nevada.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

FEBRUARY 22, 1999

Mr. BRYAN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

A BILL

To amend the National Forest and Public Lands of Nevada

Enhancement Act of 1988 to adjust the boundary of

the Toiyabe National Forest, Nevada.

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

3 SECTION 1. ADJUSTMENT OF BOUNDARY OF THE TOIYABE

4 NATIONAL FOREST, NEVADA.

5 Section 4(a) of the National Forest and Public Lands

6 of Nevada Enhancement Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 2750)

7 is amended—

8 (1) by striking ‘‘Effective’’ and inserting the

9 following:

10 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Effective’’; and
2

•S 439 IS

1 (2) by adding at the end the following:

2 ‘‘(2) BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT.—Effective on

3 the date of enactment of this paragraph, the portion

4 of the land transferred to the Secretary of Agri5 culture under paragraph (1) situated between the

6 lines marked ‘Old Forest Boundary’ and ‘Revised

7 National Forest Boundary’ on the map entitled ‘Ne8 vada Interchange ‘‘A’’, Change 1’, and dated Sep9 tember 16, 1998, is transferred to the Secretary of

10 the Interior.’’.

Æ
Exhibit 32.2
                                                               ------------

                            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 ARKONA, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the  quarterly  period  ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Stephen
L. Russo, Chief Financial Officer 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
to the best of my knowledge:

         (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
         the Company.


/s/ Stephen L. Russo
---------------------------
Chief Financial Officer
August 13, 2004
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 211 (Thursday, October 31, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 86849]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-25264]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS 
Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: October 31, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
October 22, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 511 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-128, K2025-126.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-25264 Filed 10-30-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.



## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2009-3148 HENRY J. MUMME, JR.,

Petitioner,

v. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, Respondent. Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in NY3330080318-I-1. ON MOTION Before BRYSON, Circuit Judge. ORDER The Department of Veterans Affairs moves to reform the official caption to designate the Merit Systems Protection Board as respondent. We treat Henry J. Mumme, Jr.'s submission received on June 11, 2009 as an opposition to the motion. The Board dismissed Mumme's appeal, challenging his non-selection for a registered nurse position, for lack of jurisdiction. The Board determined that the appointment of medical professionals under 38 U.S.C. §§ 7401, 7403 is not subject to veterans' preference rights and thus Mumme has no right to appeal an alleged violation of such rights. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 7703(a)(2), the Board is designated as the respondent when the Board's decision concerns the procedure or jurisdiction of theBoard. In this case, the Board dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Thus, the

Board is the proper respondent in this petition for review. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: The motion is granted. The revised official caption is reflected above. The Board should calculate its brief due date from the date of filing of this order. FOR THE COURT 

# JUN 3 0 2009 Date

cc: Henry J. Humme, Jr. Matthew H. Solomson, Esq. Joyce G. Friedman, Esq.
s20 /s/ Jan Horbalv Jan Horbaly Clerk Ines u.s• SO URTgF APPEALS FOR THE F EDERAL CIRCUIT JUN 3 0 2009 JAN HOR8ALY CLERK

2009-3148 2
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 328 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 328

  To make permanent the moratorium on the imposition of taxes on the 
                               Internet.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 28, 1999

  Mr. Smith of New Hampshire introduced the following bill; which was 
  read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
                             Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To make permanent the moratorium on the imposition of taxes on the 
                               Internet.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT MORATORIUM ON IMPOSITION OF TAXES ON THE INTERNET.

    Section 1101(a) of the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency 
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999 is amended by striking ``during 
the period beginning on October 1, 1998, and ending 3 years after the 
date of the enactment of this Act'' and inserting ``after September 30, 
1998''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 21.1

List of Subsidiaries

All subsidiaries of Janus Capital Group Inc. listed below are included in the consolidated financial statements unless otherwise
indicated.

Organization

Percentage of
Ownership

State or Other
Jurisdiction of
IncorporationINTECH Investment Management LLC(1)


89.9

DelawareJanus Capital Management LLC(3)


95

DelawareJanus Capital Trust Manager Limited(4)


100

IrelandJanus Distributors LLC(1)


100

DelawareJanus Holdings LLC(2)


100

NevadaJanus Capital Asia Limited(4)


100

Hong KongJanus Capital International Limited(4)


100

U.K.Janus Capital Singapore Pte. Limited(4)


100

SingaporeJanus International Holding LLC(5)


100

NevadaJanus Management Holdings Corporation(2)


100

DelawareJanus Services LLC(1)


100

DelawarePerkins Investment Management LLC*(1)


78.4

DelawareCapital Group Partners, Inc.(2)


100

New York


---

---



QuickLinks
#### ALEXANDER OLDHAM v. *W.*M. SNEED.

*Practice**— Appeal—Excusable *Neglect*

Upon an appeal from an order refusing to vacate a judgment nndel* 0. C. P., § 133, it is the duty of the judge to find the facts, so that this court may decide whether in law they amount to mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.

Motion to vacate a judgment heard at spring term, 1878, of New Hanover superior court, before *Eure, J.*

No statement of the case is necessary to an understanding of the opinion.

*Mr. J. D. Bellamy,*for plaintiff.

*Messrs. A. T. & J. London,*for defendant.

Dillard, J.

This was an application in the court below by the defendant to vacate a judgment against him under C. 0. P., § 133, on the grounds therein mentioned, and from the denial of the motion an appeal is taken to this court.

*16The ease of appeal, as made out by the judge, states the judgment of the court merely, and shows no facts on which he acts, but directs the affidavits used before him and the record of the cause in which the judgment complained of was obtained, to be sent up. From the exercise of his discretion no appeal lies, but from his mistakes of the law in ascertaining the facts, or upon the question whether the facts in law amount to mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, an appeal may be taken, and the judge below reviewed. In the absence of any facts found, we can only see from the case sent up that His Honor refused to vacate the judgment, but why he did so, or whether with or without any mistake, or misapplication of the law, cannot be seen.

Let this be certified to the end that defendant may renew his motion if so advised and have the court to find the facts, and thereon, the judgment of the court.

Per Curiam. Order accordingly.
#### DANIEL LITTLE AND OTHERS *against*ARCHIBALD BUIE AND OTHERS.

Half brothers and sisters, not of the blood of the purchasing ancestor, cannot take under the statute of descents; where, therefore, one died seized of land descended through his mother from her father, and left no issue, nor brother, nor sister, except half sisters, not of his mother’s blood, it was *Held*that the father, surviving, took the inheritance; Rev. Code, 38, sec. 6.

Where a bill has parties plaintiff, having no interest in the questions set forth, the objection may be taken by demurrer.

*(McMichal*v. Moore, 3 Jones’ Eq. 471, cited and approved.)

Áepeal from, the Court of Equity of Robeson county

The bill was filed by Daniel Little and his children, Margaret Ann Tirginia Little, Mary Caroline Little, and Eliza Jane Little, alleging that they are tenants in common with the defendants of a large body of land, which descended to the defendants, and Rebecca, the wife of the plaintiff, Daniel, from her father, Dan. Buie. The bill further alleges, that after the death of Daniel Buie, plaintiff’s wife, Rebecca, had one son, Daniel B. Little, aud died ; that the plaintiff then intermarried with one Mary Evans, by whom he had one daughter, the plaintiff, Margrret Ann Virginia ; that after this, Daniel B. Little died in 1858, unmarried and without issue : and, within a month of his death, the other plaintiffs, Mary Caroline and Eliza Jane, were born to the said Daniel Little and his wife, Mary. The bill sets forth, that the plaintiff, Daniel, is entitled to an estate by the curtesy in the land in question, and that the other plaintiffs, the half sisters of the said Daniel B. Little, are entitled to the reversion in fe'e. The prayer is for a partition. To this bill the defendants demurred.

The cause was set down to be argued on the demurrer, and on argument, the Court below sustained the demurrer, from which the plaintiffs appealed.

*W. MoL. Kay,*for the plaintiffs.

*P&rson*and *¡Strange,*for the defendants.

*11MáNly, J.

It is clear, upon the authority of the case of *McMichal v. Moore, 3*Jones’ Eq. Rep. 471, that the father, upon the death of his son, took his entire interest in the land, in question, and the half sisters, not being of the blood of the transmitting ancestor took nothing. In making, therefore, the sisters parties complainant, there has been a misjoinder, for which defendants may demur. (See Story’s Eq. Pl. S. 544, and the cases there cited.)

The order below is affirmed, the demurrer is sustained, and the bill dismissed without prejudice, but at the plaintiffs’ costs.

Pee, Cueiam, ■ Decree accordingly.