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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Registrant's audited financial reports and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1997
<CASH>                                         806,250
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               10,629,575
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       2,618,302
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,598,255
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              22,644,326
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       354,520
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,136,728
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                22,644,326
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,223,455
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,300,322
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             331,585
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,076,867)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,076,867)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,076,867)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-27-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           4,491
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,067
<ALLOWANCES>                                       427
<INVENTORY>                                      2,635
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 9,059
<PP&E>                                           1,136
<DEPRECIATION>                                      11
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  32,234
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,601
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                      25,316
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    32,234
<SALES>                                          1,083
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,083
<CGS>                                            (571)
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    (737)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  21
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (223)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        72
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (151)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (151)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.04)
        

</TABLE>
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.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board

          - [S-12-2015]

On January 29, 2015, the Executive Secretary of the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board docketed an application submitted by the Greater Metropolitan Area Foreign Trade Zone Commission, grantee of FTZ 119, requesting subzone status subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 119 on behalf of MAT Industries, LLC, in Springfield, Minnesota.

                    The application was processed in accordance with the FTZ Act and Regulations, including notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     inviting public comment (80 FR 6040, 2-4-2015). The FTZ staff examiner reviewed the application and determined that it meets the criteria for approval.                

Pursuant to the authority delegated to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary (15 CFR Sec. 400.36(f)), the application to establish Subzone 119J is approved, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.13, and further subject to FTZ 119's 2,000-acre activation limit.

Dated: March 25, 2015.

Andrew McGilvray,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2015-07724 Filed 4-2-15; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, November 22, 2016.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, November 22, 2016

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A17I0075. TONYA D. ROBERTS, et al. v. BRUNSWICK ADDICTION ASSOCIATES, 

LLC, DBA TREATMENT CENTER OF BRUNSWICK, et al..

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

CE1600047063
## Akutan Traditional Council P. 0. Box89 Akutan, Alaska 99553-0089 (907) 698-2300 I 2301 Fax

• • • • • • • • • • ·' • ¥ • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .,., ..**~** .... • '!';....,.,-: · • ·1· # •**~-- ··";'·L~**  ·**~ ·1~**  October 26, 2012


### Mr. Dennis J. Devany ChiefEAS and Domestic Analysis U.S. Department ofT ransportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington DC 20590

Re: Native Village ofAkutan comments on EAS by Grant Aviation at 

### Ak.un, Alaska.

Dear 

### Mr. Devany,

Justrecently, unexpectedly, Pen Airhalted all air service to Akutan with the 

### use ofthe Grumman Goose. The Grumman Goose 

### was our only air service we depended on for mail, freight and passenger service to connect to themainland andthe lower 48 states. Furthermore, the residents depend on this air service for their medication, social security checks, and longevity checks to arrive. This 

### will have a huge negative impact on our elders that 

### are on a set income. Withoutthe Grumman Goose, we 

### are stranded here on Akutan Island, oron Amaknak: Island ( where there is a large airport for largerplanes to land) while travelling from Anchorage, Alaska, or from the lower 48 waiting to getback home to Akutan. Akutan 

### is only accessible by motor vessels, or by seaplane.

After reviewing theproposal submitted by Grant Aviation

### to the U.S. D.O.T. for Essential Air Seniice (EAS) between Dutch Harbor Alaska and 

### Ak.un Island Alaska, the Native Village ofAkutan strongly supports Grants Aviation's proposal for air transportation ofpassengers, mail, and freight between Dutch Harbor andtherunway built on Akun Island.
The·Native Village ofAkutan requests that the U.S. Department ofTransportation approves GrantAviations EAS proposal, so we 

### can continue 

### to have reliable air service from Akun Island 

### to DutchHarbor.

# Sin~~ 

# f:bStepetffi,Admirii,_,
Native Village ofAkutan
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 61 (Tuesday, March 31, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 17080]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07237]


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

 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-85,674]


Levi Strauss & Co., Eugene, Oregon; Notice of Affirmative 
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application dated on February 6, 2015, a state workforce 
official requested administrative reconsideration of the negative 
determination regarding workers' eligibility to apply for worker 
adjustment assistance applicable to workers and former workers of Levi 
Strauss & Company, Eugene, Oregon. The determination was issued on 
January 14, 2015 and the Notice of Determination was published in the 
Federal Register on February 18, 2015 (80 FR 8692).
    Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(c) reconsideration may be granted under 
the following circumstances:
    (1) If it appears on the basis of facts not previously considered 
that the determination complained of was erroneous;
    (2) If it appears that the determination complained of was based on 
a mistake in the determination of facts not previously considered; or
    (3) If in the opinion of the Certifying Officer, a 
misinterpretation of facts or of the law justified reconsideration of 
the decision.
    The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination 
based on the findings that worker separations at Levi Strauss & Co., 
Eugene, Oregon are not attributable to increased imports of articles or 
a shift in production of articles to a foreign country.
    The request for reconsideration asserts that although the workers 
are engaged in service-related activities, the workers perform 
production forecasting activities and order management support of Levi 
Strauss' production of clothing and apparel. The reconsideration 
application concludes that both activities drive production and has 
been shifted to a foreign country.
    The Department of Labor has carefully reviewed the request for 
reconsideration and the existing record, and has determined that the 
Department will conduct further investigation to determine if the 
workers meet the eligibility requirements of the Trade Act of 1974.

Conclusion

    After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim 
is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the U.S. 
Department of Labor's prior decision. The application is, therefore, 
granted.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 10th day of March 2015.
Michael W. Jaffe,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2015-07237 Filed 3-30-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
Exhibit 4.36

 

Promissory Note

 

FOR VALUE RECEIVED, Column A, a Chinese citizen (the “Borrower”), hereby unconditionally promises to pay to the order of Mai Wang Trading (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., a Chinese wholly foreign owned company, or its assignee(s) (collectively, the “Lender”), the principal sum of Column B, as the principal amount under the loan (“Loan”).

 

1.                                      Maturity:  The Loan shall become due and payable until the earlier of (i) the date on which the Lender, at its sole and absolute discretion, delivers the Exercise Notice to the Borrower pursuant to the Exclusive Purchase Option Agreement, whereby the Borrower shall transfer the Interests to the Lender or to the Lender’s designated natural or legal Persons; and (ii) the date on which ML Shopping is dissolved, liquidated, becomes bankruptcy or otherwise terminated in accordance with the Articles of Association of ML Shopping and relevant PRC laws and regulations from the date of the execution of this note.  The Loan may be renewed pursuant to the Loan Agreement executed between the Lender and the Borrower as of Column C  (the “Loan Agreement”).

 

2.                                      Default and Remedy:  Upon the occurrence of any Event of Default specified in the Loan Agreement, the Loan shall automatically become immediately due and payable together with all Default Interest (as defined in the Loan Agreement) accrued and all other obligations payable under the Loan Agreement without any notice.

 

 

	
By:
    	
/s/ Column A
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Name:
    	
Column   A
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Date:
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    


 











 

	
 
    	
 
    	
Column A
    	
 
    	
Column B
    	
 
    	
Column C
    
	
1
    	
 
    	
ZHANG BANG
    	
 
    	
RMB3,000,000
    	
 
    	
Feb 20, 2010
    
	
2
    	
 
    	
LIU GUISHENG
    	
 
    	
RMB500,000
    	
 
    	
Sep 17, 2010
    
	
3
    	
 
    	
SANG XIAOBING
    	
 
    	
RMB1,500,000
    	
 
    	
Feb 10, 2012
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk October 19, 2011

1012 

# Order

October 19, 2011

142763

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 142763 COA: 293580 Kent CC: 09-001515-FC GEORGE MICHAEL GRESHAM, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the December 7, 2010 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

M ARILYN 

### K ELLY 

### , J., would grant leave to appeal.
STATE OF CONNECTICUT

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

In the matter of

The State ofConnecticut and

Combustion Engineering

)

)

)

)

)

Trading Agreement and Order No. 8154A

Modification NO.2

Whereas, the Commissioner of Environmental Protection ("Commissioner") and Combustion

Engineering ("Respondent") having agreed to the terms and conditions set forth in Trading

Agreement and Order No. 8154A and all previous modifications thereto, do now, by mutual

agreement, further modifY said modified Trading Agreement and Order as follows:

I. All references to May 1, 2009 with respect to the authorization to use emissions

reduction credit trading and/or emission reduction credits and NOx allowances to

comply with the emissions limits of Subsections 22a-174-22(d)(I) through 22a-174-

22(d)(2)(A) ofthe Regulations ofConnecticut State Agencies ("Regulations") are

hereby replaced with May I, 2010.

2. Any references to October 151 with respect to the date by which the Respondent shall

estimate and acquire Discrete Emission Reduction Credits ("DERCs") and/or

allowances for the non-ozone season shall now include October 1,2009.

3. Any references to May 31,2007 and May 31, 2008 with respect to calculation and

retirement of non-ozone season DERCs shall now include May 31, 2009 and May 31,

2010.

4. All references to September I, 2008 with respect to the submission of Future

Compliance Reports are hereby replaced with September 1,2009.

5. No later than May 1,2010, with respect to the emission units identified in Trading

Agreement and Order No. 8154A and/or its subsequent modifications, the Respondent

shall comply with the requirements of Sections 22a-174-22(d)(I) and 22a-174-

22(d)(2)(A) ofthe Regulations.

6. All other terms and conditions of Trading Agreement and Order No. 8154A, as

modified, shall remain in effect.

(Printed on Recycled Paper)

79 Elm Street _ Hanford. CT 06106-5127

www.cLgov/dcp

An Equal OpporlUnify Emplo.ver
. -

Combustion Engineering 2 Trading Agreement and Order No. 8154A

Modification No.2

The Respondent hereby consents to the entry ofthis modification to the Trading Agreement

and Order without further notice.

Combustion Engineering

Signature:M~ Name: It. (.{.../ f~ K.,,, 4<-«'1,....1-( ,

Title: tJI rz-.e.--~ r

Date: '-t IIf/(] ')

Issued as a modification of a Trading Agreement and Order.

~df..-- Director

Engineering & Enforcement Division

Bureau ofAir Management

Date
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 64 (Friday, April 3, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 18269]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07649]


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

OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY


Impact of the Select Agent and Toxin Regulations; Correction

AGENCY: Office of Science and Technology Policy.

ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Office of Science and Technology Policy published a 
document in the Federal Register Notice, 2015-05906, on March 16, 2015, 
pages 13639-13641, concerning a Request for Public Comment on the 
Impact of the Select Agent Regulations. The document contains incorrect 
dates as we wish to extend the comment period to April 10, 2015, 5 p.m. 
ET.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: May Chu at (202)-456-6029.

Corrections

    In the Federal Register of March 16, 2015, in the FR Doc. 2015-
05906,
    (1) On page 13640 in the SUMMARY section (which starts on page 
13639) in the first column, first line, correct the date to read:

    5 p.m. ET on April 10, 2015 to be considered.

    (2) On page 13640, first column, correct the DATES caption to read:


DATES: Documents must be received by 5:00 p.m. ET on April 10, 2015 to 
be considered.

    Dated: March 30, 2015.
Ted Wackler,
Deputy Chief of Staff and Assistant Director.
[FR Doc. 2015-07649 Filed 4-2-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3170-F5-P
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Utica Mutual Insurance Company, Respondent,<br><br>against<br><br>Environmental Center of Setauket-Smithtown, Inc., Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Appeal from an order of the District Court of Suffolk County, Second District (James F. Matthews, J.), dated March 6, 2015. The order denied defendant's motion to vacate a default judgment on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction to determine the motion because the judgment had been satisfied.</p><p>ORDERED that the order is reversed, without costs, and the matter is remitted to the District Court for a determination of the merits of defendant's motion to vacate the default judgment.</p><p>In this action to recover the sum of $2,547.50, the affidavit of service shows that defendant was served on February 22, 2007 by delivering the summons and complaint to a managing agent of defendant at its premises at 62 Eckernkamp Drive, Smithtown, New York. When defendant failed to appear or answer, a default judgment was entered against it on March 21, 2007. Defendant's bank account was restrained, and the judgment was ultimately satisfied as a result. Defendant thereafter moved to vacate the default judgment pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (4), arguing that it had never been served with the summons and complaint.</p><p>In opposition to the motion, plaintiff argued, among other things, that the court lacked jurisdiction over the matter because the judgment had been satisfied.</p><p>In its order dated March 6, 2015, the District Court denied the motion to vacate the default judgment, stating that, since the judgment had been paid and satisfied, the court no longer retained jurisdiction.</p><p>Contrary to the opinion of the District Court, payment of the judgment in this case did not divest the District Court of jurisdiction to determine the motion (<i>see Smithtown Gen. Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co.</i>, 111 AD2d 382 [1985]; <a href="../2014/2014_51033.htm" target="_blank"><i>Springer v AEP Eng'g., P.C.</i>, 44 Misc 3d 130</a>[A], 2014 NY Slip Op 51033[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th &amp; 13th Jud Dists 2014]; <i>Pergament Employee Federal Credit Union v Estrada</i>, 2002 NY Slip Op 50577[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th &amp; 10th Jud Dists 2002]).</p><p>We pass on no other issue.</p><p>Accordingly, the order is reversed and the matter is remitted to the District Court for a determination of the merits of defendant's motion to vacate the default judgment.</p><p>Marano, P.J., Iannacci and Garguilo, JJ., concur.</p><br>Decision Date: December 07, 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>