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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-28-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-28-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-28-1999
<CASH>                                      36,736,179
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               19,737,141
<ALLOWANCES>                                 4,092,333
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            53,783,905
<PP&E>                                      15,167,609
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             352,580,052
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       15,341,908
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                218,080,696
<COMMON>                                         6,066
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               352,580,052
<SALES>                                     49,181,124
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          10,443,804
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,671,604
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,121,594
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,550,010
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,550,010
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                  A.S.V., Inc.
                 Exhibit 11 - Computation of Earnings per Share

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                         Three Months Ended          Six Months Ended
                                                              June 30,                    June 30,
                                                      ------------------------   -------------------------
                                                         2000         1999           2000          1999
                                                         ----         ----           ----          ----
<S>                                                  <C>           <C>           <C>           <C>
Basic
   Earnings
     Net earnings                                    $   599,308   $   688,695   $ 1,016,069   $ 1,337,642
                                                     ===========   ===========   ===========   ===========

   Shares
     Weighted average number of common
       shares outstanding                              9,698,837     9,662,264     9,693,849     9,488,210
                                                     ===========   ===========   ===========   ===========

   Basic earnings per common share                   $       .06   $       .07   $       .10   $       .14
                                                     ===========   ===========   ===========   ===========



Diluted
   Earnings
     Net earnings                                    $   599,308   $   688,695   $ 1,016,069   $ 1,337,642
                                                     ===========   ===========   ===========   ===========


   Shares
     Weighted average number of common
       shares outstanding                              9,698,837     9,662,264     9,693,849     9,488,210
     Assuming exercise of options and warrants
       reduced by the number of shares which could
       have been purchased with the proceeds from
       the exercise of such options and warrants         177,030       419,398       221,604       392,565
                                                     -----------   -----------   -----------   -----------

     Weighted average number of common and
       common equivalent shares outstanding            9,875,867    10,081,662     9,915,453     9,880,775
                                                     ===========   ===========   ===========   ===========

   Diluted earnings per common share                 $       .06   $       .07   $       .10   $       .14
                                                     ===========   ===========   ===========   ===========
</TABLE>
# C_2022424EN.01001401.xml

| 7.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 424/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 424/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 22 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Schleswig-Holsteinisches Verwaltungsgericht — Germany) — SI and Others v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-497/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Border controls, asylum and immigration - Asylum policy - Directive 2013/32/EU - Common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection - Application for international protection - Grounds for inadmissibility - Article 2(q) - Concept of ‘subsequent application’ - Article 33(2)(d) - Rejection by a Member State of an application for international protection as inadmissible on account of the rejection of a previous application made by the person concerned in the Kingdom of Denmark - Final decision taken by the Kingdom of Denmark)

(2022/C 424/15)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Schleswig-Holsteinisches Verwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: SI, TL, ND, VH, YT, HN

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Operative part of the judgment

Article 33(2)(d) of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection, read in conjunction with Article 2(q) thereof and Article 2 of Protocol (No 22) on the position of Denmark annexed to the EU Treaty and to the FEU Treaty,

must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State other than the Kingdom of Denmark which provides for the possibility of rejecting as inadmissible, in whole or in part, an application for international protection within the meaning of Article 2(b) of that directive, which has been made to that Member State by a national of a third country or a stateless person whose previous application for international protection, made to the Kingdom of Denmark, has been rejected by the latter Member State.

---

(1)  OJ C 502, 13.12.2021.

---
Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission
Commission Monthly Case Activity for September 2010
1.Cases Pending Beginning of Month 292.Cases Added to Docket 

Brand Energy Solutions LLC
No. 09-1048
Direction for Review on 09/02/10

Central Florida Equipment Rentals, Inc.
No. 08-1656
Direction for Review on 09/08/10

C.P. Buckner Steel Erection, Inc.
No. 10-1021
Direction for Review on 09/28/10
	3
3.Cases Subtracted From Docket 

Dayton Tire, Bridgestone/Firestone
No. 94-1374
Decision issued on 09/10/10
-14.Total Cases Pending End of Month31
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

§906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of
ATEL Cash Distribution Fund VI, L.P. (the Partnership) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Paritosh K. Choksi,
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer of ATEL Financial Services, LLC, General Partner of the Partnership, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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 the Partnership.
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: November 12, 2010



|                                                                                                                
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Paritosh K. Choksi                                                                                          
|Paritosh K. Choksi                                                                                              
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer and
Chief Operating Officer of ATEL Financial Services, LLC
|(General Partner)                                                                                               

A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Partnership and will be retained by the Partnership and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 24.9**POWER OF ATTORNEY**KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS     WHEREAS, ALCAN INC., a Canadian corporation (the “Company”), proposes shortly to file with theSecurities and Exchange Commission, under the provisions of the Securities Act of 1934 as amended(the “Act”), the Annual Report on Form 10-K pursuant to Section 13 or 15 (d) of the Act.     WHEREAS, the undersigned is an Officer and/or a Director of the Company as indicated below;     NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned hereby constitutes and appoints R. Millington, D. McAuslandand P. Chenard and each of them, as attorneys for the undersigned and in the undersigned’s name,place and stead, and in each of the undersigned’s offices and capacities as an Officer and/or aDirector of the Company, to execute and file such Annual Report on Form 10-K, hereby giving andgranting to said attorneys full power and authority to do and perform all and every act and thingwhatsoever requisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises as fully, to all intentsand purposes, as the undersigned might or could do if personally present at the doing thereof,hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorneys may or shall lawfully do, or cause to bedone, by virtue hereof.     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 27th day of February 2007.         Signed: /s/ Gerhard Schulmeyer   Name:  Gerhard Schulmeyer   Title:  Director
#### In re Transfer of Stock of Magnetic Manufacturing Company: Magnetic Manufacturing Company and another, Appellants, vs. Manegold, Respondent.

*February 5*

March *4, 1930.*

*156For the appellants the cause was submitted on the brief of *Edmund B. Shea*of Milwaukee.

For the respondent there was a brief by *Olwell & Brady*of Milwaukee, and oral argument by *Bernard V. Brady.*

Fowler, J.

It is plain that only one sale of stock was made and that the by-law only deals with sales. There never was but one owner of the stock, Manegold. It is urged in defense that Manegold by concealing his ownership does not come into a court of equity with clean hands, and that under the rule of *Gloede v. Socha,*199 Wis. 503, 220 N. W. 950, relief should be denied him. This is a special proceeding under a statute, not a suit in equity. But Manegold’s conduct was not violative of any rights of the corporation. He made no false representations, nor were any made by any one. Coerper did not inform the corporation that he was not the owner, but this did not wrong the corporation. Mane-gold’s right to have the stock entered and the certificate issued in his own name and right had then fully accrued. The company could not then have refused to have the stock duly transferred to him. It has been in no way misled or been led to take any course which it would not have taken had it been informed that Manegold owned the stock; nor has it been in any way injured or prejudiced. Mere silence which has not resulted in prejudice or legal injury has never yet been held to bar one from relief,

*157It is also urged that the restriction of the by-law requiring offering for sale to the corporation applies to every transfer, by the last sentence of the by-law. But this restriction is on sales and cannot apply to mere transfers. If a stockholder desired to give his stock to a son without any consideration, must he first offer to give it to the corporation under the by-law ? Manifestly the last sentence of the by-law refers only to transfers incident to sales.

If the restriction did apply to transfers other than on sale it could not operate here because the statute, sec. 183.14, provides that there shall be no restrictions on transfers of stock by any by-law unless the right of the corporation to the restriction shall be printed upon the certificate. The restriction here involved was not so printed. The restriction- would not have bound Manegold had Kubitz not complied with the by-law. With greater reason it does not apply when he did comply with it.

*By the Court.*— The order appealed from is affirmed.
Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission
Commission Monthly Case Activity for April 2012
1.Cases Pending Beginning of Month 36
2.Cases Added to Docket 

Stone & Webster Construction, Inc., and its Successors
No. 10-0130
Petition for Interlocutory Review Granted on 4/2/12

Bartlett Nuclear, Inc., and its Successors
No. 10-0169
Petition for Interlocutory Review Granted on 4/2/12

2
3.Cases Subtracted From Docket

C.P. Buckner Steel Erection, Inc.
No. 10-1021
Decision on 4/25/12

-1


4.Total Cases Pending End of Month37
----

Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 2 August 2006 — Aughinish Alumina Ltd v Commission

(Case T-69/06 R)

(Application for interim measures - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - State aid - Urgency)

(2006/C 249/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Aughinish Alumina Ltd (Askeaton, Ireland) (represented by: J. Handoll and C. Waterson, solicitors)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: N. Khan and K. Walkerová, Agents)

Re:

Application for suspension of the operation of Commission Decision 2006/323/EC of 7 December 2005 concerning the exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production in Gardanne, in the Shannon region and in Sardinia, respectively implemented by France, Ireland and Italy (OJ 2006 L 119, p. 12) in so far as it relates to the applicant

Operative part of the order

----
```

[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 3 (Thursday, January 8, 2009)]
[House]
[Page H73]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                THE FACTS ABOUT OUR ECONOMIC CHALLENGES

  (Ms. FOXX asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, we have been dealing with economic challenges 
for several months. Last fall it was called a bailout. Now it's being 
called a stimulus or sometimes an economic recovery plan. But I think 
it's important that we talk about the facts of what we're discussing.
  The stimulus being discussed now could range from $800 billion to 
more than $1.3 trillion. This will likely be the largest single 
spending bill in history. Now, what will this do to our deficit which 
we heard so much about for the 2 years before the Democrats took power?
  Nonpartisan budget experts are now predicting a deficit for 2009 of 
almost $1.3 trillion, triple the current year's deficit. That would 
equal 9 percent of GDP, which is a 50 percent increase over the World 
War II record of 6 percent. We may be paying a premium rate to foreign 
investors like China to borrow this kind of money. And what's going to 
be included in that package? $350,000 for a fitness center, $4.5 
million to bottle water with recyclable bottles.
  Mr. Speaker, we need more of the facts, not just words.

                          ____________________
```
1. Purpose. The purpose of this Change Notice is to update Directive ADS-1, 

Environmental Management Systems, Transmittal Number 916, dated August 31, 2006. 

2. Summary of Changes. 

 a. On January 24, 2007, the President signed Executive Order (EO) 13423, 

“Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management” that rescinded 

EO 13101, “Greening the Government Through Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Federal 

Acquisition,” dated September 14, 1998, and EO 13148, “Greening the Government Through 

Leadership in Environmental Management,” dated April 21, 2000. ADS-1 references to EO 

13101 and EO 13148 are replaced with EO 13423. 

 b. Additionally, this directive was erroneously given the subject code ADS-1 in 

2006. The correct subject code for Environmental Management Systems will be ADS-19. This 

action clarifies and corrects the conflict with historical ADS-1, which refers to the Privacy Act.

3. Effective Date. Upon issuance

4. Distribution. By electronic format

Contact: Finance and Administration Directorate, Division of Administration

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING

RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT

DIRECTIVES 

SYSTEM

Subject Code:

 ADS-19-1

Transmittal Number:

 964

Date:

 February 27, 2009

 Subject: Environmental Management Systems

 

 Approval: Glenda H. Owens Title: Acting Director

CHANGE NOTICE
EXHIBIT 32.2

RELM WIRELESS CORPORATION

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 Annual Report of RELM Wireless Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, William P. Kelly, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)

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

RELM Wireless Corporation

/s/ William P. Kelly

William P. Kelly

Executive Vice President and

Chief Financial Officer



Date:

March 4, 2010
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 6138** 

ALBERT TYRONE JOHNSON , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections , Respondent

- Appellee
.

**No. 11**  **- 6**  **403**

ALBERT TYRONE JOHNSON , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria
. Claude M. Hilton , Senior D istrict Judge. ( 1:09

- cv - 01297

- CMH

- IDD )

Submitted : November 10, 2011 Decided: November 17, 2011

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS , Circuit Judges.2 D ismissed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Albe rt Tyrone Johnson , Appellant Pro Se. John Michael Parsons , Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Albert Tyrone John son seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition (No. 11

- 6138) and its order denying leave to appeal in forma pauperis in appeal No. 11

- 6138 (No. 11

- 6403). In No. 11

- 6138, the district court’s order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (A) (2006) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “ a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. ” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. M cDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the pe tition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Johnson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealabili ty and dismiss the appeal in No. 11

- 6138
.4 Turning to appeal No. 11

- 6403 , the denial of in forma pauperis status is immediately appealable. Roberts v. U.S. Dist. Ct. , 339 U.S. 844, 845 (1950) (per curiam ). Because this court granted Johnson leave to app eal in forma pauperis in No.
11

- 6138, we dismiss the appeal in No. 11

- 6403 as moot.
See Incumaa v. Ozmint , 507 F.3d 281, 286 (4th Cir. 2007) (setting forth the principles of appellate mootness)
. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSE D