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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS IN THE QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q OF VYYO INC. FOR THE QUARTER
ENDED MARCH 31, 2000, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           3,558
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      919
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,389
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 6,386
<PP&E>                                           1,547
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   9,533
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,452
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     15,369
<COMMON>                                        76,548
<OTHER-SE>                                    (93,836)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     9,533
<SALES>                                          1,601
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,841
<CGS>                                            1,336
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,392
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,903
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (68)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (11,255)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (11,255)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (11,255)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.48)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.48)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.3

  EXHIBIT 10.3
 

 SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
 DEFERRED ACCOUNTING COSTS
 BREAKDOWN
 

 	 	 	 	
	 Date
	 Expense
	 Payee
	 US$ Amount

	 

	 

	 

	 


	 7/25/2011
	 Accounting
	 P. Morelli
	  $        2,500.00 

	 9/15/2011
	 Accounting
	 G. Buczynski
	  $        2,250.00 

	 9/20/2011
	 Accounting
	 C. Starrs
	  $           382.00 

	 11/10/2011
	 Legal
	 J. Walker
	  $        5,000.00 

	 12/30/2011
	 Accounting
	 P. Morelli
	  $        2,250.00 

	 Total @ 12/31/11
	 

	  $      12,382.00 

	 

	 

	 

	 


	 

	 

	 

	 


	 2/4/2012
	 Accounting
	 P. Morelli
	  $        1,000.00 

	 3/20/2012
	 Accounting
	 P. Morelli
	  $        5,000.00 

	 3/20/2012
	 Accounting
	 E. Low
	  $        1,000.00 

	 6/1/2012
	 Accounting
	 P. Morelli
	  $        4,000.00 

	 6/8/2012
	 Accounting
	 E. Low
	  $           967.00 

	 9/30/2012
	 Accounting
	 P. Morelli
	  $        1,000.00 

	 9/30/2012
	 Accounting
	 E. Low
	  $        2,048.00 

	 12/31/2012
	 Accounting
	 P. Morelli
	  $        1,500.00 

	 12/31/2012
	 Accounting
	 E. Low
	  $        1,000.00 

	 12/31/2012
	 Accounting
	 P. Morelli
	  $        3,500.00 

	 Total @ 12/31/12
	 

	  $      33,397.00
Exhibit 32.2
 CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  
    
    The Form 10-Q of the Company for the three months ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-Q), fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
78m or 78o(d)); and
    
    The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ Corey RinkerCorey RinkerChief Financial Officer,
Treasurer and Assistant Secretary
EPA TESTIMONY 5-24-12 Jerome A. Stone I am Jerome Stone, a former United Church of Christ minister, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy and former chair ofthe department ofPhilosophy at William Rainey Harper College in Palatine, Illinois where I taught Environmental Ethics. In fact I wrote the
course description for Environmental Ethics for use in the community colleges inIllinois. I have three points tomake. First, cost-benefit analysis is not the final analysis. I hold in myhands a calculator and a picture ofmy grandchildren. They could be your children or grandchildren. A calculator is useful in cost-benefit analysis. But the worth ofchildren and their health cannot be determined by a calculator. We cannot ignore cost-benefit analysis, but, iflife is sacred, we need more than a calculator. The second point is that the argument aboutjobdestruction isfalse. I listen to that argument very carefully. I used to be a minister in Danville, in east-central Illinois. The economyofthe areais very closetomy heart. Butevenmore important, we need healthy workers, healthy children to grow into healthy workers, and healthy lives for our retired workers. Strip mining is what really displaces workers. Ifthere is some displacement of workers from these regulations, there will also be newjobs from the pollution-curbing technologies. There will be time to adjustjobs andjobtraining. We did it as the tobacco industry slowed down. We can do it in coal. The bottom line is, ifwe don't have our health,jobswon'tmatter. The economic argument is a red herring.

### '
My third point is this. I have studied and taught the religions ofthe world. And I
can tell you that ifthere is anything that all the religions agree on, it is that we must care for the earth and work for the alleviation ofsuffering now and for future generations. The worth ofchildren and their health cannot be 

### determined by a calculator. We cannotignore cost-benefit analysis, but, iflife is sacred, we need more 

### than a calculator. Thus we need to have and to enforce strong standards ofcarbon emission. The EPA is to be 

### applauded for its work.

2
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

October 27, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 136824 Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 136824 

 COA: 274541 

Washtenaw CC: 05-000770-FC 

AARON MICHAEL OLLILA,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 13, 2008 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

d1020 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

October 27, 2008 

 Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-20328

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JEREMIAH LENEAL ROBINSON,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:19-CR-103-2

Before DAVIS, HAYNES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Jeremiah Leneal Robinson appeals the district court’s denial of his 

motion to reconsider its detention order pending sentencing following his guilty 

plea to possessing a firearm after having been convicted of a misdemeanor 

crime of domestic violence. Robinson was ordered detained after the district 

court found that he was a danger to the community. 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 27, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-20328 Document: 00515013408 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/27/2019
No. 19-20328

2

Unless there is clear and convincing evidence that Robinson presents no 

risk of danger to any person or to the community, presentence detention is 

mandated. See 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a). We review the district court’s ruling for 

an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Olis, 450 F.3d 583, 585 (5th Cir. 

2006). Robinson fails to show by clear and convincing evidence that he is not 

a danger to the community. Moreover, the evidence strongly supports the 

finding that he presents a risk of danger. Evidence established that Robinson 

pleaded guilty to a firearms offense, had been convicted of misdemeanor 

domestic violence, and sold illegal drugs and firearms while on probation in 

the months preceding his arrest. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse 

its discretion by denying release on bail pending sentencing. 

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 19-20328 Document: 00515013408 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/27/2019
# C_2016182EN.01000501.xml

| 20.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 182/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/5

---

Call for proposals — European Defence Agency (EDA) — Prolongation of deadline for submission of proposals

(Official Journal of the European Union C 108 of 23 March 2016)

(2016/C 182/06)

The deadline for submission of applications for the call for proposals has been extended until 23 June 2016, 17.00, Brussels time.

23 June 2016, 17.00, Brussels time.

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-6385

KHEMALL JOKHOO,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

LOLA VELAQUEZ-AGUILU, Assistant U.S. Attorney,

 Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:19-ct-03125-FL)

Submitted: September 29, 2020 Decided: October 6, 2020

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Khemall Jokhoo, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Khemall Jokhoo appeals the district court’s order construing his complaint as an 

action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 

403 U.S. 388 (1971), and dismissing it under 18 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons 

stated by the district court. Jokhoo v. Velaquez-Aguilu, No. 5:19-ct-03125-FL (E.D.N.C. 

Feb. 15, 2020). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions 

are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
**CERTIFICATION
      OF**


**CHIEF
      EXECUTIVE OFFICER**


**PURSUANT
      TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**




I,
      Jay
      Sargeant, Chief Executive Officer of EYI Industries, Inc. (the “Company”),
      hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my
      knowledge:





|(i) | the
              Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company, for the fiscal quarter
              ended June 30, 2007, and to which this certification is attached as
              Exhibit 32.1 (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 results of operations of the
              Company.
|---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------










By:
            /s/
                Jay SargeantName:
            Jay
                SargeantTitle:
            Chief
                Executive OfficerDate:
            August
                16, 2007






*A
      signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained
      by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
      staff upon request.*





*This
      certification accompanies the Form 10-QSB to which it relates, is not deemed
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated
      by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933
      or
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made before or after the date
      of
      the Form 10-QSB), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained
      in such filing.*
###### **EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

#### **Section 1350Certificate of Chief Executive Officer**

                In connection with theQuarterly Report of Summus, Inc. (USA)  (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for theQuarter ended March 31, 2004, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Gary E. Ban, the Chief Executive Officer ofthe 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 complieswith the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

                2. The information containedin this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditions and results of operations of theCompany.

 

 

| Date:          May 7, 2004      | /s/ Gary E. Ban                                       Gary E. Ban    Chief ExecutiveOfficer |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 59 (Friday, March 27, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 16492]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07079]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 9067]


Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Discovering the Impressionists: Paul Durand-Ruel and 
the New Painting'' Exhibition

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 
of August 28, 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority No. 
257 of April 15, 2003), I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``Discovering the Impressionists: Paul 
Durand-Ruel and the New Painting,'' imported from abroad for temporary 
exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The 
objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign 
owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display 
of the exhibit objects at the Philadelphia Museum of Art, Philadelphia, 
PA, from on or about June 18, 2015, until on or about September 13, 
2015, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be 
determined, is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public 
Notice of these Determinations be published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including the 
list of the exhibit objects, contact Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
632-6467). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, 
Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: March 16, 2015.
Kelly Keiderling,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and 
Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2015-07079 Filed 3-26-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">The People of the State of New York, Respondent, <br><br>against<br><br>William Harris, Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Appeal from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Kings County (John T. Hecht, J.), rendered June 10, 2013. The judgment convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree.</p><p>ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.</p><p>Following a nonjury trial on charges of attempted assault in the third degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 120.00 [1]), menacing in the third degree (Penal Law § 120.15), attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 220.03), and harassment in the second degree (Penal Law § 240.26 [1]), defendant was convicted only of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree. On appeal, defendant contends that the Criminal Court violated his constitutional right to the assistance of counsel by denying his trial counsel the opportunity to make a closing argument. </p><p>Since defense counsel was present in court when this alleged error occurred, she was required to have timely protested the court's ruling in order to preserve this claim for appellate review so as to afford the trial court the opportunity to promptly cure the alleged error (<i>see</i> CPL 470.05 [2]; <a href="../2015/2015_02672.htm" target="_blank"><i>People v Garay</i>, 25 NY3d 62</a>, 67 [2015]; <i>People v Umali</i>, 10 NY3d 417, 423 [2008]; <i>People v Narayan</i>, 54 NY2d 106, 112 [1981]; <a href="../2012/2012_04213.htm" target="_blank"><i>People v Vega</i>, 95 AD3d 773</a> [2012]). Here, however, counsel failed to do so. Therefore, defendant's contention is unpreserved for appellate review (<a href="../2011/2011_51443.htm" target="_blank"><i>see People v Delvois</i>, 32 Misc 3d 133</a>[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 51443[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th &amp; 13th Jud Dists 2011]) and, to the extent that defendant's claim can be considered an implicit constitutional challenge to CPL 350.10 (3) (c), which provides that in a "single judge trial" on an information in a local criminal court, "[t]he court may in its discretion permit the parties to deliver summations," that contention is likewise unpreserved (<i>see</i> CPL 470.05 [2]; <a href="../2006/2006_02234.htm" target="_blank"><i>People v Baumann &amp; Sons Buses, Inc.</i>, 6 NY3d 404</a>, 408 [2006]; <i>Delvois</i>, 32 Misc 3d 133[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 51443[U]). Furthermore, we decline to review this claim in the interest of justice (<i>see Vega</i>, 95 AD3d 773; <i>People v Kearse</i>, 283 AD2d 262 [2001]). </p><p>Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.</p><p>Elliot, J.P., Pesce and Aliotta, JJ., concur.</p><br>Decision Date: November 28, 2016<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
# C_2016275EN.01000401.xml

| 28.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 275/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 275/4

---

ESPON EGTC — Invitation for stakeholders to submit proposals for targeted analyses

(2016/C 275/05)

In the framework of the ESPON 2020 Single Operation, the ESPON EGTC invites Stakeholders to submit proposals for targeted analyses.

The closing date for the submission of proposals is 19 August 2016.

19 August 2016.

The application form and a guidance document to support stakeholders in preparing proposals are available for download at the ESPON Website: http://www.espon.eu

---
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2839 

To provide an additional $1,000,000,000 for the Government of Israel to 

procure the Iron Dome defense system to counter short-range rocket 

threats, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 23, 2021 

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

the Committee on Foreign Relations 

A BILL 

To provide an additional $1,000,000,000 for the Government 

of Israel to procure the Iron Dome defense system to 

counter short-range rocket threats, 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, 

3 SECTION 1. PROVISION OF ADDITIONAL AMOUNT FOR THE 

4 GOVERNMENT OF ISRAEL TO PROCURE THE 

5 IRON DOME DEFENSE SYSTEM TO COUNTER 

6 SHORT-RANGE ROCKET THREATS. 

7 (a) APPROPRIATION.—There is appropriated, out of 

8 any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2839 IS

1 for fiscal year 2022, for ‘‘Procurement-Procurement, De2 fense-wide’’, $1,000,000,000, to remain available until 

3 September 30, 2024. 

4 (b) AVAILABILITY.— 

5 (1) IN GENERAL.—Of the amount appropriated 

6 by subsection (a), $1,000,000,000 shall be available 

7 for the Secretary of Defense to provide to the Gov8 ernment of Israel for the procurement of the Iron 

9 Dome defense system to counter short-range rocket 

10 threats. 

11 (2) CONDITIONS.— 

12 (A) EMERGENCY REQUIREMENTS IN SUP13 PORT OF OPERATION GUARDIAN OF THE

14 WALLS.—Amounts available pursuant to para15 graph (1) shall be provided to address emergent 

16 requirements in support of Operation Guardian 

17 of the Walls. 

18 (B) EXCHANGE OF LETTERS AND AGREE19 MENT.—Amounts available under paragraph (1) 

20 shall be transferred pursuant to an exchange of 

21 letters and are in addition to funds provided 

22 pursuant to the U.S.-Israel Iron Dome Procure23 ment Agreement, as amended. 

24 (C) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—That noth25 ing in this paragraph shall be construed to 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 2839 IS

1 apply to amounts made available in prior appro2 priations Acts for the procurement of the Iron 

3 Dome defense system. 

4 (c) SUPPLEMENT, NOT SUPPLANT.—The amount ap5 propriated by subsection (a) shall supplement and not sup6 plant any amounts already appropriated for the purpose 

7 described in subsection (b)(1). 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
1

Mears, Gilbert

From: dc@abender.com

Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2014 5:17 AM

To: Mears, Gilbert

Subject: Docket #: EPA-HQ-TRI-2013-0281 

Follow Up Flag: Follow up

Flag Status: Flagged

Mr. Mears, 

Please, close the loophole that is allowing the fracking companies to get away with not reporting 

the toxic chemicals they are using. 

This is mining at its best: a few from out of state make the money, and the locals inherit the 

misery and devastation. 

Appreciate, 

Daniel Camacho