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

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1999
<CASH>                                         290,639
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,253,854
<ALLOWANCES>                                    77,904
<INVENTORY>                                  1,348,854
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,460,196
<PP&E>                                       2,995,992
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,250,869
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,212,495
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,554,670
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        46,041
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,212,495
<SALES>                                      4,288,119
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,288,119
<CGS>                                        3,028,922
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,028,922
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,526,021
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (4,837)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (261,987)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (49,140)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (212,847)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (212,847)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### Cristalinda FARIAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nancy A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 15-35897

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 19, 2017 * San Francisco, California

Filed December 21, 2017

D. James Tree, Attorney, Tree Law Office, Yakima, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Catherine Cecilia Escobar, Assistant Regional Counsel, SSA — Social Security Administration, Office of the General Counsel, Seattle, WA, Timothy M. Durkin, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USSP — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Spokane, WA, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: CLIFTON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Cristalinda Farias appeals the district court’s decision affirming the denial of her application for supplemental security income. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate and remand.

The administrative law judge (ALJ) posed an incomplete hypothetical to the vocational expert because the ALJ failed to include all Farias’s residual functional capacity (RFC) findings. *Bray v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin.,*554 F.3d 1219, 1228 (9th Cir. 2009). The hypothetical concerned an employee who only needed “breaks” rather than “frequent breaks,” and who had the ability to “stand or walk” rather than “stand and walk.” Because the ALJ narrowed Farias’s RFC without explanation, we vacate and remand to the ALJ for further proceedings. *Matthews v. Shalala,*10 F.3d 678, 681 (9th Cir. 1993).

Each party shall bear its own costs.

VACATED and REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 2 (Friday, January 3, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 400]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-54]

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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

National Assessment Governing Board; Meeting

AGENCY: National Assessment Governing Board; Education.

ACTION: Notice of closed meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda of a 
forthcoming meeting of the Achievement Levels Committee of the National 
Assessment Governing Board. This notice also describes the functions of 
the Board. Notice of this meeting is required under Section 10(a)(2) of 
the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

DATES: February 10, 1997.

TIME: 7:00 a.m.-2:30 p.m.

LOCATION: The Brown Palace Hotel, 321 Seventeenth Street, Denver, 
Colorado.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mary Ann Wilmer, Operations Officer, National Assessment Governing 
Board, Suite 825, 800 North Capitol Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., 
20002-4233, Telephone: (202) 357-6938.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The National Assessment Governing Board is 
established under section 412 of the National Education Statistics Act 
of 1994 (Title IV of the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994), 
(Pub. L. 103-382).
    The Board is established to formulate policy guidelines for the 
National Assessment of Educational Progress. The Board is responsible 
for selecting subject areas to be assessed, developing assessment 
objectives, identifying appropriate achievement goals for each grade 
and subject tested, and establishing standards and procedures for 
interstate and national comparisons.
    On February 10, 1997, between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. 
there will be a closed meeting of the Achievement Levels Committee. The 
Committee will be reviewing the final data and national consensus 
information on the proposed 1996 science achievement levels to prepare 
its final recommendations to present to the Executive Committee.
    This meeting must be conducted in closed session because premature 
disclosure of the information presented for review might significantly 
frustrate implementation of a proposed agency action. Such matters are 
protected by exemption 9(B) of Section 552b(c) of Title 5 U.S.C.
    A summary of the activities of the meeting and related matters, 
which are informative to the public, consistent with the policy of 5 
U.S.C., 552b, will be available to the public within fourteen days 
after the meeting.
    Records are kept of all Board proceedings and are available for 
public inspection at the U.S. Department of Education, National 
Assessment Governing Board, Suite 825, 800 North Capitol Street, N.W. 
Washington, D.C., from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Dated: December 30, 1996.
Roy Truby,
Executive Director, National Assessment Governing Board.
[FR Doc. 97-54 Filed 1-2-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-M
```
Exhibit 4.35


 


[Note: Translation from the original agreement
written in Chinese]


 


Amendment to the Sixth Amended and Restated
Business Operations Agreement 


 


This Amendment was executed on August 15,
2013 in Beijing by the following parties:


 


Party A: eLongNet Information Technology
(Beijing) Co., Ltd.


Address: 10 Jiuxianqiao Street, Chaoyang
District Beijing


Legal Representative: Guangfu Cui


 


Party B: Beijing Asiamedia Interactive
Advertising Co., Ltd.


Address: 2nd Floor, Xingke
Plaza C, 10 Jiuxianqiao Street, Chaoyang District Beijing


Legal Representative: Guangfu Cui


 


Party C: Guangfu Cui


Address: No.1, XiangHongqi Street,
Haidian District, Beijing


ID No.: []


 


 


WHEREAS: 


 


		1.	On December 26, 2012, Party A and Party B entered into the Sixth Amended and Restated Business Operations
Agreement (the “Business Operations Agreement”).



 


		2.	Due to the development of the business, on July 31, 2013, eLong Information Technology Co., Ltd. increased
the registered capital of Beijing Media from RMB1,000,000 to RMB30,000,000.



 


NOW THEREFORE, Party A and Party B
hereby agree to amend certain terms of the Loan Agreement as set forth below:


 


		1.	As Party B’s equity interest in Beijing Media has changed from 50% to 1.67%, therefore the corresponding
descriptions of the shareholding of Party B in the Business Operations Agreement are hereby changed to 1.67%.



 


		2.	Other than the amendment noted above, no other changes are made to the Business Operations Agreement.



 


		3.	This Amendment shall be effective as of the date first set forth above, and shall constitute an integral
part of the Business Operations Agreement. In the event of any conflict between the terms of this Amendment and the Business Operations
Agreement, the terms of this Amendment shall prevail. Matters not explicitly set forth in this Amendment shall be governed by the
Business Operations Agreement.



 


		4.	This Amendment is in triplicate and each Party holds one copy. Each original has the same legal effect.



 


[No text hereunder]


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 




    	1



    	 



    

  


Exhibit 4.35


 


		1.1	This Agreement is executed by Chinese in quadruplicate and each party holds one copy, which shall
have the same legal effect.



 


[No text hereunder]


 


 


Party A: eLongNet Information Technology
(Beijing) Co., Ltd.


	Signature of Authorized Representative:	[seal of eLongNet Information Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd.]	
	 	/s/ Cui Guangfu	


 


 


 


Party B: Beijing Asiamedia Interactive
Advertising Co., Ltd.





	Signature of Authorized Representative:	[seal of Beijing Asiamedia Interactive Advertising Co., Ltd.]	 
	 	/s/ Cui Guangfu	 


   


Party C: Cui Guangfu





	Signature:	/s/ Cui Guangfu 	 


  






    	2
Submitted March 16,

affirmed December 14, 2016,

petition for review denied March 2, 2017 (361 Or 238)

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Plaintiff-Respondent, v.*HEATHER LYNN CIRCLE, *Defendant-Appellant.*

Lane County Circuit Court

201218510, 231203003; A156819 (Control), A156826

385 P3d 88

Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Marc D. Brown, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Paul L. Smith, Deputy Solicitor General, and Timothy A. Sylwester, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Duncan, Presiding Judge, and Flynn, Judge, and Haselton, Senior Judge.

PER CURIAM

In A156819, affirmed. *State v. Silsby,*282 Or App 104, 113, 386 P3d 172 (2016). In A156826, affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

 

	Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, the undersigned officer of Harold's Stores, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies that the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended November 1, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
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 Telestone Technologies Corporation (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 as filed with
the Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Han
Daqing, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
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 result of operations of the Company.




Dated: November
15, 2010




By:
            /s/
      Han DaqingName:
            Han
      DaqingTitle:
            Chief
      Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
EX-10.66



 Exhibit 10.66 

February 18, 2014 
 Dr. Andrew Pecora 

100 First Street - Suite 301 
 Hackensack, New Jersey 07601 

 

	Re:	Stock Option Modifications. 

 Dear Dr. Pecora: 

This letter agreement will memorialize our understandings with respect to your outstanding stock options following your amicable resignation
from the Board of Directors of Cancer Genetics, Inc., (the “Company”), effective as of February 18, 2014. 
 As of today, you
have the following stock options: 
  

									
	 Number of options
	  	Issue Date	  	Exercise Price	 	  	Vested Options
	 15,000
	  	2.19/2009	  	$	4.00	  	  	15,000
	 10,000
	  	10/10/2013	  	$	15.39	  	  	0
	 12,000
	  	8/15/2010	  	$	10.00	  	  	12,000

 We agree that notwithstanding that the October 10, 2013 stock options are not vested, we will deem them
to be vested and exercisable upon your resignation. In addition, notwithstanding any provisions of our equity compensation plans with respect to expiration of options upon termination of service or any other agreements between us, you may exercise
all or any part of all three options at any time on or prior to June 30, 2014, at which time all options shall expire. You agree however, that you will not sell any of the shares of common stock of the Company issuable upon the exercise of any
such options until May 20, 2014 (or 48 hours after we report earnings for our first fiscal quarter of 2014, if later). 
 We appreciate
you service to the Company and wish you the best in all future endeavors. By execution of this letter, please confirm that you are in agreement with the foregoing and that you have reviewed the Form 8-K announcing your departure from the Board and
agree with its content. 







 
	
	Very truly yours,
	
	/s/ Panna L. Sharma
	
	President and CEO


  

	
	Agreed to and Accepted by:
	
	/s/ Andrew Pecora
# C_2021513EN.01003502.xml

| 20.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 513/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 513/35

---

Action brought on 27 October 2021 — Alcogroup and Alcodis v Commission

(Case T-691/21)

(2021/C 513/50)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Alcogroup (Brussels, Belgium) and Alcodis (Brussels) (represented by: P. de Bandt, C. Binet and M. Nuytten, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order the Commission to pay all the costs of the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay all the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action against the Commission’s decision of 17 September 2021, requesting the applicants to reinitiate, under certain conditions, the settlement procedure in Case AT.40054 — Ethanol Benchmarks, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of the rules applicable to settlements. The applicants claim in that regard that, by adopting the contested decision requesting the applicants to reinitiate a settlement procedure under certain conditions, the Commission infringed the rules applicable to settlements. The applicable rules do not allow the Commission, on the one hand, to reopen a settlement procedure at that stage of the procedure and, on the other hand, to do so by requiring the applicants to cease all discussions as to the facts alleged against them. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the rules applicable to settlements. The applicants claim in that regard that, by adopting the contested decision requesting the applicants to reinitiate a settlement procedure under certain conditions, the Commission infringed the rules applicable to settlements. The applicable rules do not allow the Commission, on the one hand, to reopen a settlement procedure at that stage of the procedure and, on the other hand, to do so by requiring the applicants to cease all discussions as to the facts alleged against them.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence. The applicants submit that the Commission cannot make the opening of a new settlement procedure subject to the condition that they abandon the arguments made by them in the ordinary procedure following the failure of the first settlement procedure. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence. The applicants submit that the Commission cannot make the opening of a new settlement procedure subject to the condition that they abandon the arguments made by them in the ordinary procedure following the failure of the first settlement procedure.

---
#### Michael G. WOLFF, Trustee-Appellant, v. Garrett KATZ; Gabrielle Katz; Gregory Katz, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-1840

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: December 27, 2017

Decided: January 10, 2018

Jeffrey M. Orenstein, WOLFF <& OR-ENSTEIN, LLC, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellant. Stephen A. Metz, OFFIT KUR-MAN, P.A., Bethesda, Maryland, for Ap-pellees.

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Michael G. Wolff, the trustee in the underlying bankruptcy proceeding, appeals the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order dismissing his complaint under 11 U.S.C. §§ 548, 550 (2012) as time-barred. We have reviewed the record included on appeal as well as the parties’ briefs, and we find no reversible error. Accordingly, -we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Wolff v. Katz,*No. 1:16-cv-04035-JFM, 2017 WL 2590757 (D. Md. June 14, 2017). 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*
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-1772

IANKA DEMIREVA,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-04-

3109-AMD)

Submitted: April 17, 2006 Decided: May 9, 2006

Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ianka Demireva, Appellant Pro Se. Steven David Frenkil, Kathryn

Mary Widmayer, MILES & STOCKBRIDGE, PC, Baltimore, Maryland, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Ianka Demireva appeals the order of the district court

granting summary judgment to The Johns Hopkins University in

Demireva’s civil action alleging employment discrimination and

retaliation. See Demireva v. Johns Hopkins Univ., No. CA-04-3109-

AMD (D. Md. June 6, 2005). We have reviewed the record, the

district court’s order, the opinion from the bench, and the

parties’ briefs on appeal, and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 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.

AFFIRMED
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 42 (Tuesday, March 4, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 9762]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5222]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP97-203-001]


Questar Pipeline Company; Notice of Tariff Filing

February 26, 1997.
    Take notice that on February 21, 1997, Questar Pipeline Company 
(Questar) tendered for filing to become part of its FERC Gas Tariff, 
First Revised Volume No. 1, Substitute First Revised Sheet Nos. 81A, 
and 82 and Substitute Original Sheet No. 82A to be effective January 
23, 1997.
    Questar explains that the proposed tariff sheets revise Section 
12.13 of the General Terms and Conditions of Part I of Questar's tariff 
by incorporating tariff language as directed by the January 22, 1997, 
Commission letter order, issued in Docket No. RP97-203. The revised 
Section 12.13 implements a mechanism for tracking fuel-use and lost-
and-unaccounted-for gas to be effective January 23, 1997.
    Questar states that it has included a response to the protest filed 
by Conoco Inc. as directed by the January 22, 1997, letter order.
    Questar further states that a copy of this filing has been served 
upon Questar's customers, the Public Service Commission of Utah and the 
Wyoming Public Service Commission.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Rule 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211). All such 
protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the 
Commission Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission 
in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve 
to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Copies of this filing 
are on file with the Commission and are available for public 
inspection.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-5222 Filed 3-3-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M