alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Pride and another, Appellants, vs. First Trust Company of Appleton and others, Respondents.

For the appellants: *Frank E. McAllister*of St. Paul, Minnesota, and *Ellsworth C. Smith*of Tomahawk.

For the respondents: *Heber H. Pelkey*of Appleton, for the First Trust Company of Appleton; *Fisher, Cashin &**659*Reinholdt*of Stevens Point, for the Wisconsin Valley Trust Company and the Tomahawk Kraft Paper Company; *Brazeau & Graves*of Wisconsin Rapids, for the Consolidated Water Power & Paper Company; and *Miller, Mack & Fairchild*of Milwaukee, for the Wisconsin Public Service Corporation and J. P. Pulliam.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
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
  (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/ Robert GreenbergRobert GreenbergChief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)March 2, 2009/s/ Frederick H. SchneiderFrederick H. SchneiderChief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)March 2, 2009
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                    5
<LEGEND>
THIS RESTATED SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF NETWORK-1 SECURITY SOLUTIONS, INC. FOR THE
PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>

<S>                                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                        12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                  JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                    DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                            6,423,000
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       188,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         77,000
<INVENTORY>                                           2,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  6,619,000
<PP&E>                                              872,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                     (478,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    8,080,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               841,000
<BONDS>                                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                           6,000
<COMMON>                                             44,000
<OTHER-SE>                                        7,189,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      8,080,000
<SALES>                                             569,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    699,000
<CGS>                                               166,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       767,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  4,633,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    126,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                        0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (5,981,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (5,981,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      204,000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (5,777,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                           (2.56)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (2.56)



</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 10.16


                 Agreement dated June 13, 2001,
               between Samuel M. Fodale ("Fodale")
           and Competitive Technologies, Inc. ("CTT")


     1.   Reference is made to Article IV of the By-laws of CTT
("Article IV"), a copy of which is attached hereto.

     2.   The Securities and Exchange Commission has entered a
Formal Order of Private Investigation in the Matter of Trading in
the Securities of Competitive Technologies, Inc., File No. B-1698
(the "SEC Proceeding").  CTT has been served with a subpoena in
the SEC Proceeding requesting (among other things) certain
documents relating to Fodale or any entity that he controls,
including but not limited to Central Maintenance Services, Inc.

     3.   Fodale has retained his own counsel in connection with
the SEC Proceeding and this agreement.

     4.   CTT has agreed, pursuant to Article IV, to advance to
Fodale, under subsection (e) of Article IV, Fodale's expenses
incurred in connection with the SEC Proceeding.

     5.   Fodale agrees and undertakes to repay any amounts so
advanced unless it shall ultimately be determined that he is
entitled to be indemnified by CTT as authorized in Article IV.

     6.   The determination made by CTT under subsection (d) is
preliminary and is based substantially on representations by
Fodale to CTT.  Fodale agrees that, should further facts be
developed in the SEC Proceeding that result in a decision by CTT
to change its determination under subsection (d), further
advances will cease under this agreement.

                              Competitive Technologies, Inc.


s/ Samuel M. Fodale           By:  s/ Frank R. McPike, Jr.
Samuel M. Fodale                   Frank R. McPike, Jr.
                                   President
EXHIBIT 32.01

Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to

18 U.S.C. Section 1350

and Securities Exchange Act Rule 13a-14(b)

In connection with the Annual Report of Concur Technologies, Inc. (Concur) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, S. Steven Singh, Chief Executive Officer, and Chairman of the Board of Concur, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and Securities Exchange Act Rule 13a-14(b), that to my knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 Concur.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                         |  |    |  |                                                                   |  | 
|------------------------ |  | -- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|Dated: November 25, 2008 |  | By |  | /s/    S. STEVEN
SINGH                                           
|                         |  |    |  | S. Steven Singh Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board

This certification accompanies this report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 and shall not be deemed to be filed by Concur for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Environmental Protection Agency

          - [FRL-12267-01-R9]

# AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

# ACTION:

Notice of final order on petition.

# SUMMARY:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator signed an order dated September 11, 2024, granting in part and denying in part a petition dated May 13, 2024, from Sierra Club. The Petition requested that the EPA object to a Clean Air Act (CAA) title V operating permit issued by the Pinal County Air Quality Control District (PCAQCD) to the Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District's Coolidge Generating Station (“SRP Coolidge”), an electricity generating station located in Coolidge, Arizona.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Catherine Valladolid, EPA Region 9, (415) 947-4103,                         *valladolid.catherine@epa.gov.*                         The final Order and Petition are available electronically at:                         *https://www.epa.gov/​title-v-operating-permits/​title-v-petition-database.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The EPA received a petition from Sierra Club dated May 13, 2024, requesting that the EPA object to the issuance of operating permit no. V20676.R02, issued by PCAQCD to SRP Coolidge in Coolidge, Arizona. On September 11, 2024, the EPA Administrator issued an order granting in part and denying in part the petition. The Order explains the basis for the EPA's decision.

Sections 307(b) and 505(b)(2) of the CAA provide that a petitioner may request judicial review of those portions of an order that deny issues in a petition. Any petition for review shall be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit no later than December 30, 2024.

Dated: October 21, 2024.

Martha Guzman Aceves,

Regional Administrator, Region IX.

[FR Doc. 2024-25153 Filed 10-29-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000925908
<NAME> COFFEE PEOPLE, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-26-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-20-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-12-1998
<CASH>                                           2,224
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,184
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      4,304
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                15,122
<PP&E>                                          12,240
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,832
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  56,613
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,126
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        44,637
<OTHER-SE>                                       (350)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    56,613
<SALES>                                         15,011
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                15,011
<CGS>                                            6,566
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   13,812
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 110
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,089
<INCOME-TAX>                                       477
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                612
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       612
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.06
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 23.2**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

The Board of Directors

Skechers U.S.A., Inc.: 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (Nos. 333-87011, 333-87009, 333-71114, 333-135049 and 333-147095) on Form S-8 of Skechers U.S.A., Inc. of our report datedMarch 1, 2011, with respect to the consolidated statements of operations, comprehensive income, equity, and cash flows of Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2010, and the related financial statementschedule, which report appears in the December 31, 2012 annual report on Form 10-K/A of Skechers U.S.A., Inc. 

/s/ KPMG LLP 

Los Angeles, California 

July 31, 2013
#### Kuslawen Veramallay et al., Appellants, v Elissa Paim et al., Respondents.

[774 NYS2d 730]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Huttner, J.), dated August 22, 2002, which denied their motion, in effect, to vacate the dismissal of the action and to restore the action to *674pre-note of issue status, and (2), as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the same court dated December 4, 2002, as, upon reargument, adhered to its prior determination.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated August 22, 2002, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order dated December 4, 2002, made upon reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated December 4, 2002, is reversed insofar as appealed from, upon reargument, the order dated August 22, 2002, is vacated, the motion is granted, the action is restored to pre-note of issue status, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings in accordance herewith; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs demonstrated both a reasonable excuse for their default and a meritorious cause of action. Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have vacated the dismissal of this action. Further, since it appears that discovery has not been completed, the action should have been restored to pre-note of issue status *(see generally Kandel v Hoffman,*309 AD2d 904 [2003]; *Basetti v Nour,*287 AD2d 126, 133-134 [2001]).

An examination of the Supreme Court file in this action discloses that there is no written order relative to the dismissal of this action on April 22, 2002. We take this opportunity to remind the bench that upon dismissing any matter for any reason, the court should enter a written order stating the basis for the dismissal *(see Basetti v Nour, supra).*Prudenti, P.J., Florio, H. Miller, Schmidt and Cozier, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 211 (Thursday, October 31, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 86850]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-25294]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--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 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 & USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] Contract 
403 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at 
www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-130, K2025-128.

Sean Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-25294 Filed 10-30-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
#### State, Appellant, vs. Hartwig, Respondent.

*September 8*

October 3, *1950.*

*543For the appellant there was a brief by the *Attorney Gen*eral, *Roy G. T'ulane,*assistant attorney general, and *Clarence G. Traeger,*district attorney of Dodge county, and oral argument by *Stewart G. Honeck,*deputy attorney general.

For the respondent there was a brief by *Thiel & Allan*of Mayville, and oral argument by *Lloyd Allan.*

Brown, J.

It is necessary to consider only one of the assignments of error which the writ of certiorari brought before the circuit court and the appeal brings before us. A summary of the entries made by the justice of his docket shows the following proceedings:

April 2, 1949 — Warrant issued and served; defendant appeared and pleaded not guilty. Case continued to April 18, 1949, at 2 :00 p.m. for trial.

April 18, 1949 — Trial. Case continued to April 20, 1949, at 4:30 p.m. at the Clark farm for a view of the premises. Stipulated that the parties and attorney need not be in court when decision is reached. Stipulated that the attorneys may submit statements of fact to the court.

April 20, 1949 — The court and the attorneys viewed the premises.

April 28, 1949 — The court finds the defendant guilty and imposes sentence.

At the time of these proceedings, and until July 1, 1950, the following statute was in force: Sec. 360.06 “On the return of the warrant with the accused the said justice shall proceed to hear, try, and determine the cause within one day unless continued for cause; . . .” Construing this statute we early held that the justice’s jurisdiction does not survive the day unless he has continued the case for cause. *Hepler v. State*(1878), 43 Wis. 479; *Harrington v. State*(1880), 50 Wis. 68. 6 N. W. 317. The docket here shows that there was no *544continuance beyond April--20th. Jurisdiction therefore expired with the close of that day and when, on-April 28th, the justice determined guilt and- sentenced the defendant he no longer- had- jurisdiction to do so.- His judgment and sentence aré void and the judgment of the learned circuit court declaring them so must be affirmed.

*By the Coiirt.*— Judgment affirmed.

Gehl, J., took no part.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 597 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 597

To amend section 922 of chapter 44 of title 28, United States Code, to 
   protect the rights of citizens under the Second Amendment to the 
                   Constitution of the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 11, 1999

  Mr. Smith of New Hampshire (for himself, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Burns, Mr. 
Enzi, and Mr. Murkowski) introduced the following bill; which was read 
          twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend section 922 of chapter 44 of title 28, United States Code, to 
   protect the rights of citizens under the Second Amendment to the 
                   Constitution of the United States.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Second Amendment Rights Protection 
Act of 1999''.

SEC. 2. PROTECTION OF SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS.

    Subsection (t) of section 922 of chapter 44 of title 18, United 
States Code, is amended by inserting at the end thereof the following 
new paragraph:
            ``(7) None of the funds appropriated pursuant to any 
        provision of law may be used for (1) any system to implement 
        this subsection that does not require and result in the 
        immediate destruction of all information, in any form 
        whatsoever, submitted by or on behalf of any person who has 
        been determined not to be prohibited from owning a firearm; (2) 
        the implementation or collection of any tax or fee by any 
        officer, agent, or employee of the United States, or by any 
        state or local officer or agent acting on behalf of the United 
        States, in connection with the implementation of this 
        subsection; provided, that any person aggrieved by a violation 
        of this provision may bring an action in the Federal district 
        court for the district in which the person resides; provided 
        further, that any person who is successful with respect to any 
        such action shall receive damages, punitive damages, and such 
        other remedies as the court may determine to be appropriate, 
        including a reasonable attorney's fee.''.
                                 <all>
```
No. 96—2210.

#### The Union National Bank v. James M. Flower et al.

This was *indebitatus assumpsit,*brought in the court below by appellees against the bank, appellant, to recover for services as attorneys, performed by the former, for and at the request of the latter. There was a trial of issues joined resulting in a verdict and judgment in favor of *636tlie plaintiffs below, for $812.25, and defendant brings the record here by appeal. The case shows that the defendant, being in the banking business in the city of Chicago, the firm of Eddy, Harvey & Co. became its customer; that the latter failed, owing the defendant about $23,000; that after such failure, the defendant, through 'its president, employed the plaintiffs, who were practicing lawyers in said city, to undertake the collection of said indebtedness; that plaintiffs entered upon the performance of that undertaking, bringing one suit in the Federal and another in the State court against the members of the firm of Eddy, Harvey & Co., and performed considerable legal services in connection therewith, and the evidence shows that while such proceedings were pending an offer of compromise, at ninety cents on the dollar, of said indebtedness, was made on behalf of Eddy, Harvey *&*Co., through their attorneys, to plaintiffs, but that the defendant had declined to accept it. The evidence tended to show that such offer was the result of what the plaintiffs had done toward the discovery of a member of the firm of Eddy, Harvey & Co., who was individually of sufficient financial ability to quite insure the collection of the entire indebtedness in question. The court is of opinion that the evidence sustains the verdict.

Judge below, Elliott Anthony.

Attorneys, for appellant, Messrs. Frank J. Smith *&*Hblmer, and Mr. W. J. Herrick ;

for appellee, Mr. Frederic üllmann.

Opinion filed Jan. 6, 1886.

Opinion Per Curiam.