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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE
BALANCE  SHEET OF  CONSERVATIVE  WEST,  INC.  AS OF  SEPTEMBER  30, 2000 AND THE
RELATED  STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS  AND CASH FLOWS FOR THE NINE MONTHS THEN ENDED
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       1
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   0
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               1
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0



</TABLE>
# Wisconsin National Guard Soldier saves choking toddler

/ Published Dec. 20, 2017

CHICAGO — A Wisconsin National Guard Soldier traveling on military orders performed the Heimlich maneuver on a toddler, saving the girl's life Dec. 7 at O'Hare International Airport.

 Spc. Jasmyne Harris, a supply specialist with the Milwaukee-based 32nd Military Police Company, was waiting for a flight to Oklahoma City to learn about new protective masks her unit would be receiving, when she decided to grab some food before her flight.

 "I was going to stop at one restaurant, but then something told me to just keep going, so I found another restaurant that's actually by the gate," Harris said.

 Right as Harris sat down there was a commotion. A waitress yelled that a girl was choking. Harris saw that the toddler wasn't making a sound, and the mother was unsure of how to properly help her child.

 "I just went straight into reaction mode," Harris said.

 Harris went straight over to the family and began performing the Heimlich maneuver on the child until the girl was able to breathe again and started crying.

 Harris said she felt relieved after she knew the girl was going to be all right.

 Staff Sgt. Brandon Grodsky, an automated logistics noncommissioned officer with Headquarters and Headquarters Detachment, 257th Brigade Support Battalion, was walking by when he saw the whole incident and commended Harris. He said there were about 15 people in the area when the toddler was choking.

 "They were all kind of frozen in place and not sure what to do, whereas [Harris] just took that step up and actually acted more in a Soldier capacity, being able to handle a stressful situation and not freak out or freeze up," .Grodsky said.

 Harris learned the different versions of the Heimlich maneuver for different ages while taking a lifeguarding course in high school. This was the second time she performed the Heimlich maneuver on someone who was choking. Harris said that years ago, her younger brother was choking on a piece of candy, and she saved him.

 The toddler didn't require any other medical attention following the incident. The girl's family was grateful that Harris intervened, she said. Harris's training in the military and as a lifeguard helped her to remain calm and know what to do. That's the sort of mindset expected of Soldiers and Airmen in the National Guard, who are always ready, and always there serving as our nation's first military responder and as the Army and Air Force's primary combat reserve.

 "If you're in a situation where you have to act on it, don't think twice," Harris said. "Just act, and everything will come like second nature."
* 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 May 17, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-51642 Summary Calendar DAVID S. TAYLOR; TOBY C. TAYLOR, Petitioners-Appellants,
versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; BANK OF AMERICA, Respondents-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas

(1:06-CV-502) Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * David and Toby Taylor challenge, pro se , the district court’s denial of their petition to quash two summonses issued by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to Bank of America requesting their bank records. They were issued in furtherance of the IRS’ investigating Appellants’ 2003-2005 tax liability. Appellants assert three claims, all of which lack merit.2

First, Appellants contend the IRS lacks authority to issue
summonses for their bank records because, inter alia, “the Internal Revenue Code is not the law”. (Emphasis added). Contrary to Appellants’ contentions, Title 26 of the United States Code grants the IRS expansive information-gathering authority, including the power to issue summonses to compel disclosure. E.g. , 26 U.S.C. §§ 7602 (authorizing IRS to examine records, issue summonses, and take testimony to verify tax returns and determine tax liability) and 7609 (authorizing the IRS to “compel compliance with the summons”);
see also United States v. Arthur Young & Co. , 465 U.S. 805, 816 (1984). Second, Appellants contend they are not within any class of persons to whom the IRS may issue summonses, and the summonses lack
a legitimate purpose. Section 7602(a) authorizes the IRS to issue
summonses concerning “any person for any internal revenue tax”. 26 U.S.C. § 7602(a) (emphasis added). Third-party summonses, like those issued here, are explicitly authorized under 26 U.S.C. § 7602(a)(2). The burden on the Government to establish a prima facie case to enforce a summons is “slight” or “minimal”. M azurek
v. United States, 271 F.3d 226, 230 (5th Cir. 2001) (internal citation omitted); see also United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48, 57-58 (1964) (identifying four factors the IRS must establish for
summons enforcement). For the reasons stated by the district court, the IRS satisfied the Powell factors. Concomitantly,3

Appellants have not fulfilled their “heavy” burden of rebutting the Government’s prima facie case. Mazurek, 271 F.3d at 230. Finally, Appellants, United States citizens residing in Texas, claim the IRS lacks jurisdiction to investigate their tax liability or enforce tax laws. This contention is nonsensical. See , e.g. , Powell, 379 U.S. at 50-51; Barquero v. United States, 18 F.3d 1311, 1316 (5th Cir. 1994). AFFIRMED
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-15-00286-CV

RUSSELL GILES,

Appellant

v.

CLARISSA CARTER,

Appellee

From the 170th District Court

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2007-3851-4

ORDER

This appeal was referred to mediation on October 19, 2016. Appellee filed an 

objection to the mediation order. Appellee’s objection to mediation is sustained, and the 

Court’s referral to mediation dated October 19, 2016 is withdrawn.

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Order issued and filed December 7, 2016
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANNES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of PeoplesFirst, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004,as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, Hugh J. Garchinsky, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted to Section 906 of theSarbannes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)            the Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

 

(2)            the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultof operations of the Company.

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company andwill be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

 
|   |   |   | BY:                      | /s/ Hugh J.  Garchinsky |   |
|--------|--------|--------|--------------------------|-------------------------|--------|
|   |   |   | Hugh J.  Garchinsky      |
|   |   |   | President  and           |
|   |   |   | Chief  Executive Officer |
|   |   |   |                     |
|   |   |   | May 11, 2004             |

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> CT
<CIK> 0000853566
<NAME> BOSTON CAPITAL TAX CREDIT FUND II LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              48,895,840
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                48,895,840
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                16,438
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,335,440)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,319,002)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### Robert Taylor, Plaintiff, v Doral Inn et al., Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents. OMC, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant; React Industries, Inc., et al., Third-Party Defendants-Respondents.

[772 NYS2d 830]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the *589third-party defendant OMC, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schmidt, J.), dated December 6, 2002, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The plaintiff allegedly was injured while performing work at a construction site for his employer, the appellant OMC, Inc. (hereinafter OMC). OMC moved for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it based on the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law (see Workers’ Compensation Law § 10; *Kramps v Goldbetter,*292 AD2d 571 [2002]; *Kramer v NAB Constr. Corp.,*282 AD2d 714 [2001]). However, in opposition to its prima facie case for summary judgment, the respondents proffered evidence that OMC entered into written contracts before the subject accident pursuant to which it agreed, inter alia, to provide indemnity for claims arising from “from its own negligence or that of its agents or subcontractors” *(see Sokoloff v Harriman Estates Dev. Corp.,*96 NY2d 409 [2001]; *Matter of Municipal Consultants & Publs. v Town of Ramapo,*47 NY2d 144 [1979]; *Brown Bros. Elec. Contrs. v Beam Constr. Corp.,*41 NY2d 397 [1977]; *Crabtree v Elizabeth Arden Sales Corp.,*305 NY 48 [1953]). This is an exception to the exclusivity provision of the Workers’ Compensation Law *(see*Workers’ Compensation Law § 11; *Majewski v Broadalbin-Perth Cent. School Dist.,*91 NY2d 577 [1998]; *Stabile v Viener,*291 AD2d 395 [2002]). Accordingly, as issues of fact exist, OMC’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied. Ritter, J.P., Krausman, Townes and Cozier, JJ., concur.
```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 69 (Friday, April 10, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 19320]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08176]

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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, 
nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than May 5, 2015.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston (Richard Walker, Community 
Affairs Officer) 600 Atlantic Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02210-2204:
    1. ESB Bancorp, Inc., Easthampton, Massachusetts; to merge with 
Citizens National Bancorp, Inc. and thereby acquire, The Citizens 
National Bank, both of Putnam, Connecticut.
    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond (Adam M. Drimer, Assistant Vice 
President) 701 East Byrd Street, Richmond, Virginia 23261-4528:
    1. Howard Bancorp, Inc., Ellicott City, Maryland; to acquire all of 
the voting securities of Patapsco Bancorp, Inc., Dundalk, Maryland, and 
thereby indirectly acquire The Patapsco Bank, Dundalk, Maryland.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, April 6, 2015.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2015-08176 Filed 4-9-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
```
Exhibit 4.8



 	
  

 


SUMMARY OF TWO CREDIT LINES


During 2012, we made significant investments (from our cash reserves)
in the above described acquisitions of eleven and Frisk. Due in part to these
investments, at about the time of the filing of this Annual Report, a credit
line had been secured from an Israeli bank, and we were in the process of
closing on another credit line with a second Israeli bank. Together, both
credit lines total a sum of up to $5,000,000. These credit lines are being put
in place in order to ensure sufficient cash is available to fund the strategic
growth investments of the Company. 


In relation to these credit lines, the Company has agreed to grant
security interests generally over all Company assets, and to refrain from
encumbering its assets in favor of any other third parties. The Company has
already drawn on one of the credit lines in the amount of $1.5 million.
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel, April 30, 2015 08:00 a.m. to April 30, 2015, 06:00 p.m., Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One Bethesda Metro Center, 7400 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814 which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on March 12, 2015, 80 FR 13012.                

The meeting notice is amended to change the meeting title from NCI Omnibus R03 & R21 SEP-12 to Exploratory/Developmental Research Grant Program-Omnibus SEP-12. The meeting is closed to the public.

Dated: April 3, 2015.

Melanie J. Gray-Pantoja, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2015-08130 Filed 4-8-15; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
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 Quarterly Report of iVoice, Inc. (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certify, pursuant  to and solely for the purpose of 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:





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.








Date: May 23, 2011





/s/ Jerome R. Mahoney


Jerome R Mahoney


President, Chief Executive Officer and


Principal Financial Officer
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-16-00139-CR

Virginia Shanta MCKINLEY,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014CR5186

Honorable Lorina I. Rummel, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE BARNARD, JUSTICE MARTINEZ, AND JUSTICE ALVAREZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED 

and this appeal is DISMISSED. 

We ORDER the clerk of this court to immediately issue the mandate. See TEX. R. APP. P.

18.1(c).

SIGNED December 7, 2016.

_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice
,.
**OFFICE OF**  **THE AlTORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS AUSTIN,**  **llv**PobrlaarY lo* 1939 Hon. Brad xnrt1s;l uaistant crlaln8l Ustrlct Attorney I*CLannan county daoo, Ter;rs Deer sir8 aynoAy3ioua rith tha r .

**1** Frooedure, annsatshall be rrllowod , . .* oaAmj;aAae, lop a dlo **or by**  rsllmw 73$ a all~.~ 

### Aafara8oanbo det6rminrd, 

### Seotiar! 9 siXrtlele lO65 ha8 not bean **con8tmaod by**  thr court8 of thlrrstate partaining tc your Quaatlon.%a. Bred Xartloy, Pebruary 10, 1939, Pa&o 2
XBla nuraury t8 &tolmlAe tha loglalAtiv* lat@At irr all- the tat Qmt of par qaaatlcul

### 88 ’to alleag8 allowed whom two or iam0 uoh prlammn ara eonreyad kr the same trip. AttUltiOA b 0aU.d to.L.&aAeta of tha 2&h La&a&turo, 1895, 4t rhlch tiao OPT pr8sMt Ma. 9 of nrtlcla 1065, aboro quoted, w8a added. Prior thermto, no pr~~lalon exlated ~uthorl.xlng thr ,Pilaage tee8 in ahdolpermor 06808...

.
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State 

ex rel. Cleveland v. Indus. Comm., Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-8015.] 

NOTICE 

This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an 

advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to 

promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 

South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other 

formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before 

the opinion is published. 

SLIP OPINION NO. 2016-OHIO-8015

THE STATE EX REL. THE CITY OF CLEVELAND, APPELLANT v. INDUSTRIAL 

COMMISSION OF OHIO ET AL, APPELLEES. 

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 

may be cited as State ex rel. Cleveland v. Indus. Comm., Slip Opinion No. 

2016-Ohio-8015.] 

Oral argument canceled, court of appeals’ judgment affirmed on the authority 

of State ex rel. BF Goodrich Co., Specialty Chems. Div. v. Indus. 

Comm.

(No. 2015-1204—Submitted November 29, 2016—Decided December 7, 

2016.) 

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, 

No. 13AP-1069, 2015-Ohio-2165. 

__________________ 

{¶ 1} It is ordered by the court, sua sponte, that the oral argument 

scheduled for Wednesday, January 11, 2017, is canceled. The judgment of the 

court of appeals is affirmed on the authority of State ex rel. BF Goodrich Co., 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

Specialty Chems. Div. v. Indus. Comm., ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2016-Ohio-7988, 

___ N.E.3d ___. 

 O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LANZINGER, FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., 

concur. 

 O’DONNELL and KENNEDY, JJ., dissent and urge oral argument in this 

case for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion in State ex rel. BF 

Goodrich Co., Specialty Chems. Div. v. Indus. Comm.

_________________ 

 Barbara A. Langhenry, Cleveland Director of Law, and Elizabeth M. 

Williamson, Assistant Director of Law, for appellant. 

 Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Cheryl J. Nester, Assistant 

Attorney General, for appellee Industrial Commission. 

Shapiro, Marnecheck & Palnik, Matthew Palnik, and Elizabeth M. 

LaPorte, for respondent-appellee Jacqueline Johnson. 

_________________