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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-01-1998
<CASH>                                          11,859
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,205
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     10,908
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                43,686
<PP&E>                                           5,394
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  54,554
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           16,433
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            58
<OTHER-SE>                                      38,063
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    54,554
<SALES>                                         22,548
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                22,548
<CGS>                                           13,902
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   21,388
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    11
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,171
<INCOME-TAX>                                       481
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                690
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       690
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .12
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                       1,731,067
<SECURITIES>                               110,486,070
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,307,564
<ALLOWANCES>                                   272,986
<INVENTORY>                                    717,590
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           119,062,012
<PP&E>                                       8,501,846
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,002,936
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             170,892,168
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,350,674
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        36,268
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,493,781
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               170,892,168
<SALES>                                      5,695,816
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,695,816
<CGS>                                        3,799,740
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,205,537
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,518,728
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (4,070,003)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (4,070,003)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (4,070,003)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (1.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (1.16)
        


</TABLE>
#### Mary Gregory *v.*John Haughton adm’r of Stephen R. Hooker.

From Halifax.

Where the Plaintiff fixes the Defendant with assets for a part of his claim, he recovers that amount of assets and all costs, and is entitled to judgment *quando*for the residue.

If judgment *quando*is not entered up at the trial term, it may be af-terwards, *nunc pro tunc,*if third persons be not injured by it.

In this case, (vide 1 *Law Repos.*100 — 2 *Murph.*250-_ 2 *Law Repos.*116 — 1 *Hawks 394,J*the Plaintiff on the Spring Circuit of 1825, obtained a verdict for ¿©8i 8s. *5d.*She fixed the Defendant, with assets to the amount >f ten shillings, for which, and all costs, execution v¡as awarded ; but there was no entry of judgment *quando*for the residue of the sum found by the Jury.

*443The Plaintiff according to a previous notice, moved at the Spring Term of 1827, for judgment quando, to he entered *nunc pro tunc.*This was opposed by the Defendant, but was allowed by his honor Judge Ruppiu, whereupon the Defendaut appealed.

The. cause was submitted without argument, by *Gaston*for the Plaintiff, and by *Hogg*and Badger, for the Defendant.

Taylor, Chief-Justice.

The principles of pleading at common law do not authorize a judgment of *quando*against an administrator, where issue is taken on the plea, oí' *piene administvuvii,*and it is found in his favor— The Defendant is then out of Court, and the Plaintiff is forever concluded. The rule established in *Mary Shipley’s case,*(8 *Rep.*134 *b.)*that upon such a plea, the Plaintiff may immediately take judgment of asset quando, continues to be the law at this day ; and the form of replication to such a plea shows, that the Plaintiff must admit, the truth of it, to entitle him to such a judgment. *(9 Chitty*613.) If he take issue upon the plea, he is bound to prove that the executor has some assets in his hands, and having done so, he is then entitled to a like judgment, for the residue of the debt, which there are not present assets to pay. It is on this ground, that the Plaintiff was entitled in this case to a judgment *quando*and as it was omitted at the term of trial, and it does not appear that there are any third persons likely to be injured by the amendment, it is reasonable and just that it now be made. The-case of *Mara*v, *Quin*furnishes an example of a judgment being amended, so as to attach upon the assets, received between the time of suing out the writ and the judgment. (6 Term. *Rep. 1.)*

Per Curiam. — Judgment affirmed.
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2113 

To require the Food and Drug Administration to expedite review of 

pharmaceuticals that are approved for marketing in the European Union. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 20, 2017 

Mr. STIVERS (for himself and Mr. RYAN of Ohio) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To require the Food and Drug Administration to expedite 

review of pharmaceuticals that are approved for marketing in the European Union. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Speeding Access to 

5 Already Approved Pharmaceuticals Act of 2017’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXPEDITED REVIEW OF EU-APPROVED PHARMA7 CEUTICALS. 

8 Section 506 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 

9 Act (21 U.S.C. 356) is amended by adding at the end the 

10 following: 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2113 IH

1 ‘‘(i) EU-APPROVED PHARMACEUTICALS.— 

2 ‘‘(1) EXPEDITED REVIEW.—Beginning not later 

3 than 90 days after a new pharmaceutical is ap4 proved for marketing in the European Union, the 

5 Secretary shall, at the request of the sponsor of the 

6 pharmaceutical, facilitate the development and expe7 dite the review of such new pharmaceutical under 

8 section 505 or 515 of this Act or section 351 of the 

9 Public Health Service Act, as appropriate. 

10 ‘‘(2) DEFINITION.—In this subsection, the term 

11 ‘pharmaceutical’ means a drug (including a biologi12 cal product) or a device.’’. 

Æ 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# Comparison of Dynamic Characteristics of Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant Containment Building Determined From Tests and Earthquakes (NUREG/CR-4432, ANL-85-67)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-4432 (PDF - 2.24 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** September 1985**Date Published:** October 1985

**Prepared by:** M.G. Srinivasan, C.A. Kot, and B.J. Hsieh

Argonne National Laboratory 9700 South Cass Avenue Argonne, IL 60439

NRC Job Code A2217

**Prepared for:** Division of Engineering Technology Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC 20555-0001

Availability Notice

## Abstract

Modal parameters determined from response measured in dynamic tests and from analytical models for Simulating the tests and two subsequent earthquakes experienced by the containment building of Unit 1 of the Fukushima Power Station complex in Japan are compared for the purpose of evaluating the effectiveness of the dynamic tests in earthquake response prediction. The tests are found to have led to the correct identification of a fundamental frequency. The lack of agreement between test- and earthquake-determined modeshapes and damping is attributable more to the shortcomings of the simulation models than to differences in actual behavior.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2036 

To prohibit any reduction in the amount of the per diem allowance to 

which members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps or 

civilian employees of the Department of Defense are entitled based on 

the duration of temporary duty assignments or official travel, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 6, 2017 

Mr. KILMER (for himself and Mr. JONES) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of 

such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To prohibit any reduction in the amount of the per diem 

allowance to which members of the Army, Navy, Air 

Force, and Marine Corps or civilian employees of the 

Department of Defense are entitled based on the duration of temporary duty assignments or official travel, 

and for other purposes. 

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


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2036 IH

1 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON PER DIEM ALLOWANCE RE2 DUCTIONS BASED ON THE DURATION OF 

3 TEMPORARY DUTY ASSIGNMENT OR CIVILIAN 

4 TRAVEL . 

5 (a) MEMBERS.—Section 474(d)(3) of title 37, United 

6 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol7 lowing new sentence: ‘‘The Secretary of a military depart8 ment shall not alter the amount of the per diem allowance, 

9 or the maximum amount of reimbursement, for a locality 

10 based on the duration of the temporary duty assignment 

11 in the locality of a member of the armed forces under the 

12 jurisdiction of the Secretary.’’. 

13 (b) CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES.—Section 5702(a)(2) of 

14 title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding at the 

15 end the following new sentence: ‘‘The Secretary of Defense 

16 shall not alter the amount of the per diem allowance, or 

17 the maximum amount of reimbursement, for a locality 

18 based on the duration of the travel in the locality of an 

19 employee of the Department.’’. 

20 (c) REPEALS.— 

21 (1) EXISTING POLICY AND REGULATIONS.—The 

22 policy, and any regulations issued pursuant to such 

23 policy, implemented by the Secretary of the Depart24 ment of Defense on November 1, 2014, with respect 

25 to reductions in per diem allowances based on duraVerDate Sep 11 2014 01:58 Apr 14, 2017 Jkt 069200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H2036.IH H2036

lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2036 IH

1 tion of temporary duty assignment or civilian travel 

2 shall have no force or effect. 

3 (2) ATTEMPTED STATUTORY FIX.—Section 672 

4 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

5 Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328; 37 U.S.C. 474 

6 note; 130 Stat. 2178) is repealed. 

Æ 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
September 30, 1996 unaudited financial statements and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           5,457
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,457
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  24,972
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,972
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            17
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    24,972
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 31.2**
**CFO CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
I, Alan H. Buckey, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of LCA-Vision Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respectto the period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presentedin this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared; b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered bythis report based on such evaluation; and c. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred duringthe registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting;
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions):
a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses inthe design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
Date: November 1, 2004    /s/ Alan H. Buckey Alan H. Buckey
# C_2004118EN.01002102.xml

| 30.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/21

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Full Chamber)

of 27 April 2004

in Case C-159/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the House of Lords): Gregory Paul Turner v Felix Fareed Ismail Grovit, Harada Ltd and Changepoint SA (1)

1

(Brussels Convention - Proceedings brought in a Contracting State - Proceedings brought in another Contracting State by the defendant in the existing proceedings - Defendant acting in bad faith in order to frustrate the existing proceedings - Compatibility with the Brussels Convention of the grant of an injunction preventing the defendant from continuing the action in another Member State)

(2004/C 118/37)

Language of the case: English

In Case C-159/02: reference to the Court under the Protocol of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters by the House of Lords (United Kingdom) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Gregory Paul Turner and Felix Fareed Ismail Grovit, Harada Ltd and Changepoint SA  — on the interpretation of the abovementioned Convention of 27 September 1968 (OJ 1972 L 299, p. 32), as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 1, and – amended version – p. 77), by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic Republic (OJ 1982 L 388, p. 1) and by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic (OJ 1989 L 285, p. 1) — the Court, composed of: V. Skouris, President, P. Jann (Rapporteur), C.W.A. Timmermans, C. Gulmann, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and A. Rosas, Presidents of Chambers, A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen, N. Colneric and S. von Bahr, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 27 April 2004, in which it has ruled:

The Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the accession of the Hellenic Republic and by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic, is to be interpreted as precluding the grant of an injunction whereby a court of a Contracting State prohibits a party to proceedings pending before it from commencing or continuing legal proceedings before a court of another Contracting State, even where that party is acting in bad faith with a view to frustrating the existing proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 169, 13.7.2002.

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 Annual Report of Prevention Insurance.com  (the
"Company") on  Form 10-KSB  for  the period ending April 30, 2007 as filed with
the United States  Securities  and  Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Scott Goldsmith, President  and  Chief  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:

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

  (ii)    the  information  contained in the Report  fairly  presents,  in  all
material respects,  the  financial  condition  and  result of operations of the
Company.

      The foregoing certification is made solely for  the  purpose of 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, subject to the knowledge standard contained therein,  and not for
any other purpose.


Dated: September 4, 2007                Name: /s/ Scott Goldsmith
------------------------                -------------------------
                                        Scott Goldsmith
                                        President and
					Chief Executive Officer