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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE  COMMISSION FORM 10-Q OF COX TECHNOLOGIES,  INC. FOR THE
QUARTER  ENDED OCTOBER 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       1,605,169
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,749,890
<ALLOWANCES>                                    29,527
<INVENTORY>                                  1,348,053
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,783,677
<PP&E>                                       7,428,783
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,536,815
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,277,999
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    20,306,099
<OTHER-SE>                                (10,198,260)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                13,536,815
<SALES>                                      2,342,379
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,342,379
<CGS>                                        1,173,300
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,305,062
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              44,855
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 55,773
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             37,317
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 18,456
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    52,773
<EPS-BASIC>                                      0.002
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.002


</TABLE>
#### Jody CC., Matter of, v Evelyn EE.

3d Dept: 143 AD3d 1120 (Proceeding No. 2)

denied*
Exhibit 13.2

CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(SUBSECTIONS (A) AND (B) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED
STATES CODE)

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the
undersigned officer of Banco Macro S.A. (the Company), does hereby certify that, to the best of such officers knowledge:



| | 1. | The accompanying Report of the Company on Form 20-F (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |  |  |                       |  |                        
|-------------------- |  |  |  | --------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date: April 28, 2016 |  |  |  | /s/ Jorge Pablo Brito
|                     |  |  |  | Name:                 |  | Jorge Pablo Brito      
|                     |  |  |  | Title:                |  | Chief Financial Officer
No. 12-8897.

#### Figueroa *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
**Exhibit 23.1**
**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**
We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (No.333-120328) and S-8 (Nos. 333-76269, 333-21619, 333-55685, 333-33533, 333-27891, 333-60190,333-74452, 333-87630, 333-36092, 333-120196 and 333-120197) of Southwest Bancorporation of Texas,Inc. of our report dated March 10, 2005 relating to the consolidated financial statements, management’sassessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectivenessof internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K.
/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Houston, Texas
* Judge Motz did not participate in consideration of this

case. The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 46(d).

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-1082

EDWARD R. BUTLER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

KENNETH OESTREICHER; WHITEFORD, TAYLOR &

PRESTON; TERRY L. MUSIKA; C. W. AMOS,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA-95-

3117-CCB)

Submitted: September 20, 1996 Decided: October 2, 1996

Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and MOTZ,* Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edward R. Butler, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Jeffrey Magid, Stephen

Francis Fruin, John Francis Carlton, WHITEFORD, TAYLOR & PRESTON,

Baltimore, Maryland; Lawrence David Coppel, John Martin Klein, II,

GORDON, FEINBLATT, ROTHMAN, HOFFBERGER & HOLLANDER, Baltimore,

Maryland, for Appellees.
2
3

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissing

his civil complaint and his amended complaint for failure to state

a claim upon which relief may be granted, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6),

and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the

record and the district court's opinions and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Butler v. Oestreicher, No. CA-95-3117-CCB (D. Md. Dec. 7,

1995; Jan. 4, 1996). Further, we deny Appellant's motion to remand

this case to the state court. 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
# L_2010318DE.01005301.xml

| 4.12.2010 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 318/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.12.2010

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 318/53

---

Berichtigung der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 1000/2010 der Kommission vom 3. November 2010 zur Abweichung von den Verordnungen (EG) Nr. 2402/96, (EG) Nr. 2058/96, (EG) Nr. 2305/2003, (EG) Nr. 969/2006, (EG) Nr. 1918/2006, (EG) Nr. 1964/2006, (EG) Nr. 27/2008, (EG) Nr. 1067/2008 und (EG) Nr. 828/2009 hinsichtlich der Zeitpunkte für die Antragstellung und die Erteilung der Einfuhrlizenzen im Jahr 2011 im Rahmen von Zollkontingenten für Süßkartoffeln, Maniokstärke, Maniok, Getreide, Reis, Zucker und Olivenöl und zur Abweichung von den Verordnungen (EG) Nr. 382/2008, (EG) Nr. 1518/2003, (EG) Nr. 596/2004, (EG) Nr. 633/2004 und (EG) Nr. 951/2006 hinsichtlich der Zeitpunkte für die Erteilung der Ausfuhrlizenzen im Jahr 2011 in den Sektoren Rindfleisch, Schweinefleisch, Eier, Geflügelfleisch und Nichtquotenzucker und -isoglukose

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 290 vom 6 November 2010
  )

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 290 vom 6 November 2010

Auf Seite 31, Anhang IV, Überschrift der ersten Spalte:

anstatt:

„Zeitraum für die Beantragung von Lizenzen für die Ausfuhr von Olivenöl“

muss es heißen:

„Zeitraum für die Beantragung von Lizenzen für die Einfuhr von Olivenöl“.

---
---

---

Exhibit 15.5

CONSENT

We hereby consent to the reference
to ourvaluation of Interest rate swap transaction (IRS) of Plaza Centers N.V. in
this Annual Report on Form 20-F/A of Elbit Imaging Ltd. for the year ended December 31,
2007 and to the incorporation by reference of this Annual Report in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-117509, No. 333-130852 , No. 333-136684 and
No. 333-152820 filed by Elbit Imaging Ltd.

This consent is not to be construed
as an admission that we are an expert or that we are a person whose consent is required
to be filed with the Annual Report under the provisions of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended.

/s/ Financial Immunities Ltd.
Rehovot, Israel
November 17, 2008



---

---
#### Elmrock Opportunity Master Fund I, L.P., Appellant, v Citicorp North America, Inc., et al., Respondents.

[62 NYS3d 797]-

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barry R. Ostrager, J.), entered December 23, 2016, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7) to dismiss the breach of fiduciary duty, fraud in the inducement, and fraud causes of action and the request for punitive damages, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

As to Citicorp the fiduciary duty claim was correctly *412dismissed as duplicative of the contract claim *(see e.g. ABL Advisor LLC v Peck,*147 AD3d 689, 691 [1st Dept 2017]; *Celle v Barclays Bank P.L.C.,*48 AD3d 301 [1st Dept 2008]).

On appeal, plaintiff argues that its cause of action against defendant ESSL 2, Inc. for breach of fiduciary duty cannot be duplicative of its contract claim against Citicorp. However, the complaint shows that the fiduciary duty claim is pleaded against all three defendants, not ESSL alone. In addition, the fiduciary duty claim alleges, *“Under the Option Purchase and Sale Agreements,*Citi [i.e., defendants] had a fiduciary duty [to plaintiff]” (emphasis added).

The key allegation supporting the fraud in the inducement claim is that defendants knew that nonparty Entergy took the position that certain interests would revert to it after the Ground Leases expired. However, because it is pleaded on information and belief, this allegation is insufficient to state the claim *(see Facebook, Inc. v DLA Piper LLP [US],*134 AD3d 610, 615 [1st Dept 2015], *lv denied*28 NY3d 903 [2016]). Moreover, the Ground Leases—which defendants provided to plaintiff before plaintiff signed the option agreements—gave plaintiff notice that the interests might revert to Entergy at the end of the leases.

While the documentary evidence does not utterly refute the allegation in support of the fraud claim that Entergy settled for more than the claimed $60 million, defendants’ misrepresentation, if any, of the amount of the settlement did not cause plaintiff’s damages *(see e.g. Meyercord v Curry,*38 AD3d 315, 316 [1st Dept 2007]).

The complaint does not satisfy the requirements for stating a claim for punitive damages *(see New York Univ. v Continental Ins. Co.,*87 NY2d 308, 316 [1995]).

Concur—Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Kapnick, Kern and Moulton, JJ.
Exhibit 32.1

MTS SYSTEMS CORPORATION
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

The
undersigned, Laura B. Hamilton, the Chief Executive Officer of MTS Systems
Corporation (the Company), has executed this Certification in connection with
the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Companys
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended December 27, 2008
(the Report).

The
undersigned hereby certifies 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 results of operations of the Company.

A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its
staff upon request.

|                        |                          | 
|----------------------- | ------------------------ | 
|Date:
 February 2, 2009 |                         
|                        |                          | 
|                        | /s/
 LAURA B. HAMILTON   | 
|                        | Laura
 B. Hamilton      
|                        | Chair,
 President and   
|                        | Chief
 Executive Officer

---
DISMISS; and Opinion Filed February 4, 2015. 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 14
- 00960
- CV ZABULON SMITH , Appellant V. CASA BLANCA APARTMEN TS , Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC
- 14
- 03191
- E



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Wright, Justice Lang

- Miers, and Justice Stoddart Opinion by Justice Lang

- Miers The filing fee, docketing statement , and clerk’s record in this case are past due. By postcard dated July 25, 2014 we notified appellant the $1 9 5 filing fee was due. We directed appellant to remit the filing fee within ten days and expressly cautioned appellant that failure to do so would result in dismissal of the appeal. Also by postcard dated July 25, 2014, we notified appellant the docketing statement had not been filed in this case. We directed appellant to file the docketing statement within ten days. We cautioned appellant that f ailure to do so might result in dismissal of this appeal. By letter dated September 18, 2014, we informed appellant the clerk’s record had not been filed because appellant had not paid for or made arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record. We directed ap pellant to provide verification of payment or arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record. We cautioned appellant that failure to do so would result in the dismissal of this appeal without further notice. To date, appellant has not paid the filing fee,– 2

– fi led the docketing statement, provided the required documentation, or otherwise corresponded with the Court regarding the status of this appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 37.3(b); 42.3(b), (c).

140960F.P05 /Elizabeth Lang

- Miers/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE– 3

– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
ZABULON SMITH, Appellant
No. 05

- 14

- 00960

- CV V. CASA BLANCA APARTMENTS, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC

- 14

- 03191

- E. Opinion delivered by Justice Lang

- Miers. Chief Justice Wright and Justice Stoddart participating. In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED

. It is ORDERED t hat appellee CASA BLANCA APARTMENTS recover its costs of this appeal from appellant ZABULON SMITH.
Judgment entered this 4th day of February, 2015.
|                                                                                
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                        
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                  
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                  
|View History:                                                                   
|                                                                                
|Alaska Heat Content of Natural Gas Deliveries to Consumers  (BTU per Cubic Foot)
|                                                                                
|                                                                                
|Alaska Heat Content of Natural Gas Deliveries to Consumers  (BTU per Cubic Foot)
|                                                                                

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 1,006  | 1,006  | 1,005 
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 1,005  | 1,013  | 1,012  | 1,001  | 1,001  | 1,001  | 1,001  | 989    | 975    | 984   
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 985    | 982    | 984    | 997    |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
Take two ... minutes to change your clock and your smoke alarm batteries
 
  
  Provided by a National Fire Protection Association fact sheet. (Courtesy Graphic)




Take two ... minutes to change your clock and your smoke alarm batteries
        Take two ... minutes to change your clock and your smoke alarm batteries
            Provided by a National Fire Protection Association fact sheet. (Courtesy Graphic)

            SHARE IMAGE:

                Download Image
                    Image Details
                    
                    Photo By: National Fire Protection Association
                    
                    VIRIN: 191028-D-D0441-1001 Daylight Saving Time is almost here, and when you change your clocks on Nov. 3, make sure you change the batteries in your smoke detectors, too. The National Fire Protection Association has reported that, in home fires where smoke alarmswere present but not operational, nearly half had alarms with missing or disconnected batteries, nearly 25% had alarms with dead batteries, and the disconnections were due to nuisance alarms. Preventing fires is a smoke alarm’s only job – make sure your smoke alarm is up to the task. Install an alarm in every bedroom and/or outside every sleeping area, and on every level of the home.
 New construction requires hard-wired smoke alarms with battery backups. Connect your alarm systems if you can; when one goes off, the others will sound as well.
 Test your alarms once a month by pressing the test button.
 Install alarms at least 10 feet away from cooking appliances. Do not remove the battery if an alarm goes off while you’re cooking; press the hush or silence button.
 Never paint over a smoke alarm.
 Replace entire units at least every 10 years or according to the manufacturer’s directions, whichever is sooner.
 Consider a combination alarm that includes ionization and photoelectric detection. Ionization is more responsive to flame, while photoelectric alarms are more responsive to a smoldering fire.
 People who are hard-of-hearing or deaf can use special alarms. These alarms have strobe lights and bed shakers. Become the smartest fire-safe family on the block and practice fire drills when you change the batteries. Every family should have a safety plan that includes how to exit the home and where to meet after leaving a structure. Keep emergency exit materials such as window ladders and reflective aids in a place that’s easily accessible.
Exhibit 32.2

Certification required by Rule 13a-14(a) or Rule 15d-14(b) and section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,  18 U.S.C. Section 1350





I,  Eunice Campbell, Chief Financial Officer of Metaline Mining & Leasing Company, certify that:



1.

This quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Metaline Mining & Leasing Company 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 this quarterly report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Metaline Mining & Leasing Company



Date: May 19, 2005

/s/ Eunice Campbell

________________________________

Eunice Campbell, Principal Financial Officer
#### Dana Stuart, Respondent, v Valery Gimpel, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

[768 NYS2d 340]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the de*626fendant Valery Gimpel appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruchelsman, J.), dated August 20, 2002, which denied his motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him for lack of personal jurisdiction and extended the plaintiff’s time to effectuate service by 120 days, pursuant to CPLR 306-b.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint insofar as asserted against the appellant is dismissed, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.

The Supreme Court should have granted the motion of the defendant Valery Gimpel pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him. The plaintiff failed to diligently attempt to effect service on Gimpel, never moved for an extension of time to effect service, and failed to demonstrate the existence of a meritorious cause of action *(see Winter v Irizarry,*300 AD2d 472 [2002]; *Rihal v Kirchhoff,*291 AD2d 548 [2002]). Accordingly, an extension of time to serve Gimpel was not warranted, either for good cause shown, or in the interest of justice *(see*CPLR 306-b; *Leader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer,*97 NY2d 95 [2001]). Santucci, J.P., Goldstein, Schmidt and Cozier, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 11.1


                          FIRST AVIATION SERVICES INC.

                  STATEMENT RECOMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                             Eight-month
                                                            period ended          Year ended
                                                             January 31,          January 31,
                                                                1996                 1997
                                                            ------------         -----------
<S>                                                          <C>                <C>
Shares used in calculation of net income per common share:
   Weighted average common shares outstanding                  3,556,665           3,556,665
   Shares related to SAB Nos. 55, 64 and 83                    1,972,139           1,659,492
                                                             -----------        ------------
Total                                                          5,528,804           5,216,157
                                                             ===========        ============


Income applicable to common shareholders                     $ 1,787,000        $  1,327,000
Extraordinary item                                                     -            (864,000)
                                                             -----------        ------------
Net income applicable to common shareholders                 $ 1,787,000        $    463,000
                                                             ===========        ============


Income applicable to common shareholders
   before extraordinary item                                 $      0.32        $       0.25
Extraordinary item                                                     -               (0.16)
                                                             -----------        ------------
Net income applicable to common shareholders                 $      0.32        $       0.09
                                                             ===========        ============


</TABLE>