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


<ARTICLE>                     5

<CIK>                         0001027642
<NAME>                        Mega Holding Corp.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              AUG-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 SEP-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   AUG-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                       1
<CASH>                                          252,500
<SECURITIES>                                    236,405
<RECEIVABLES>                                   170,767
<ALLOWANCES>                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                282,067
<PP&E>                                           92,737
<DEPRECIATION>                                   62,447
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  922,500
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            39,071
<BONDS>                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                         38,585
<OTHER-SE>                                      426,617
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    883,429
<SALES>                                         404,971
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                423,334
<CGS>                                            47,394
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   734,616
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (525,633)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (154,157)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (371,476)
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (371,476)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (0.10)



</TABLE>
<PAGE>


                                  EXHIBIT 13.2

            SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION BY PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
            --------------------------------------------------------

In connection with the Annual Report of Elbit Medical Imaging Ltd. (the
"Company") on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Avraham
Shitrit, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, 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:

     (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

     (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
     material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
     Company.

Date:  June 30, 2004

     /s/ Avraham Shitrit
     ---------------------------
     Avraham Shitrit
     Principal Financial Officer
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Forms S-8 No. 333-51500, No. 333-67303, No. 333-48183 and No. 333-69242) of
AmeriPath, Inc. of our report dated March 24, 2000, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of Pathology Consultants of America, Inc. and
subsidiaries (d/b/a/ InformDx) as of December 31, 1999 and for the year then
ended included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) of AmeriPath, Inc and
subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2001.



                                                          /s/  Ernst & Young LLP


Nashville, Tennessee
March 25, 2002
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JANUARY 22, 2021

NO. 03-19-00238-CV

Glenn Hegar, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas, and 

Ken Paxton, Attorney General of the State of Texas, Appellants

v.

Zertuche Construction, LLC, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 261ST DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, BAKER, AND KELLY

REVERSED AND REMANDED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE KELLY

This is an appeal from the interlocutory order signed by the trial court on March 29, 2019. 

Having reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was reversible 

error in the order. Therefore, the Court reverses the trial court’s interlocutory order granting 

temporary injunctive relief, dissolves the temporary injunction, and remands the case to the trial 

court for further proceedings. Appellee shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this 

Court and in the court below.
Exhibit 10.12 (b)

  

  SECOND
AMENDMENT TO THE


EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN
OF


FRONTIER AIRLINES, INC.


March 30, 2006


          1.
Plan Sponsor: Frontier
Airlines, Inc., a Colorado Corporation.


          2.
Amendment of Plan: The
following Amendment to the Employee Stock Ownership Plan of Frontier Airlines,
Inc. is hereby adopted, effective as provided in Paragraph 3:


	
 

	
 

	
 


	
 

	
A.

	
Section 1.39 is amended by replacing the existing Section
1.39 with
  the following Section 1.39:


	
 

	
 

	
 


	
 

	
 

	
          1.39
  “Stock”
  means the common stock, par value $0.001 per share, of Frontier Airlines
  Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Frontier Holdings”), which is an
  employer security described in Code §§ 409(l) and 4975(e)(8) that has a
  combination of voting power and dividend rights equal to or in excess of (a)
  that class of Frontier Holding’s common stock having the greatest voting
  power and (b) that class of Frontier Holding’s common stock having the
  greatest dividend rights.





          3.
Effective Date: The
Effective Date of this Amendment will be the date that Frontier Holdings Stock
is first publicly traded.


          4.
Terms and Conditions of Plan: Except for the above Amendment, all terms and conditions of the Plan are
unamended and remain in full force and effect.


          5.
Execution: The Plan Sponsor
has executed this Amendment as of the date set forth above.


	
 

	
 

	
 


	
 

	
FRONTIER
  AIRLINES, INC.

  Plan
  Sponsor


	
 

	
 

	
 


	
 

	
By:

	
 


	
 

	
 

	



	
 

	
 

	
Paul H. Tate

  Senior Vice President and

  Chief Financial Officer
# DLA, USACE partnership ensured 24-hour response to road collapse

/ Published June 26, 2020
PHILADELPHIA, 
The Defense Logistics Agency provided more than 400 tons of construction material within 24 hours of awarding a contract to shore a collapsed road alongside a dam that occurred June 19 in Tionesta, Pennsylvania.

The request came from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Pittsburgh District immediately after they were notified of the road collapse near the dam.

“I knew we were going to need material to support the road and embankment to avoid a potential collapse, so I called the [DLA Troop Support] Construction and Equipment team on my way to the incident site,” said Neil Anderson, Facilities Manager for the USACE Pittsburgh District.

The call came in to C&E tailored vendor logistics specialist Adam Tutolo.

“Neil gave me a call explaining what happened and requested DLA’s assistance in procuring 300-400 tons of aggregate as fast as possible,” Tutolo said.                 200625-D-ZZ999-0003                            Heavy construction machinery fills temporary barriers with stone along the access road to a dam in Tionesta, Pennsylvania June 25, 2020. DLA Troop Support’s Construction and Equipment supply chain worked in partnership with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and industry partners to expedite delivery of the barriers and construction material used to shore up the area adjacent to the Tionesta Dam. Strong partnerships between DLA, whole of government partners at USACE and industry enabled expedited delivery following the June 19 incident. (Photo courtesy of USACE Pittsburgh District)            SHARE IMAGE:Download ImageImage DetailsPhoto By: Courtesy USACE Pittsburgh DistrictVIRIN: 200625-D-ZZ999-0003

Knowing the need was great and timeline short, Tutolo said, he notified his team and the appropriate C&E vendor for the Tionesta area of the incoming request, which was formally received on June 22.

“The direct call gave our team the heads up we needed to expedite the order as soon as it was received,” Tutolo said. “We were able to get quotes, coordinate with USACE and award the contract to an industry partner, Noble Supply, within 24-hours.”

Deliveries commenced on June 24, and continue in a phased approach to meet USACE’s needs in repairing the embankment.

“The DLA/USACE partnership has been developing since Hurricane Sandy in 2012,” Tutolo said. “After our support of USACE during Hurricane Maria we have continued to foster the partnership, specifically in C&E where the majority of USACE support is centered. In the past year we have visited 20 plus USACE locations to brief our programs and build relationships with USACE customers. This relationship building effort paid dividends.”

Director of Logistics at USACE Headquarters, Jeffrey Burbach agreed.

“This is another superb integration of our collective capabilities to get things done,” Burbach said. “[The DLA/USACE] partnership has flourished over the past seven-plus years because of the big events we have accomplished however, it’s the lesser known -but very important- events that carry the day!”
#### In the Matter of Donna C., Appellant, v Kuni C., Respondent.

[50 NYS3d 339]

Order, Family Court, New York County (Ta-Tanisha D. James, J.), entered on or about April 26, 2016, which, after a' hearing, denied petitioner-appellant’s violation petition for failure to establish a prima facie case, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Family Court’s determination that respondent’s actions did not rise to the level of the family offenses of aggravated harassment in the second degree, harassment in the second degree or disorderly conduct is supported by the evidence *(see*Family Ct Act § 832). In particular, petitioner failed to establish that respondent committed the family offense of harassment in *587the second degree by sending her one text message on November 30, 2015 and two text messages on December 25, 2015. Respondent’s use of foul and disparaging language to petitioner in his three text messages, although inappropriate, did not rise to the level of harassment *(see Matter of Thelma U. v Miko U.,*145 AD3d 527 [1st Dept 2016]). Nor can it be said that respondent’s conduct of sending petitioner the text messages served no legitimate purpose, because he sent them to discuss issues regarding their children *(see Matter of Cavanaugh v Madden,*298 AD2d 390, 392 [2d Dept 2002]), or in response to messages she sent to him. There is no basis to disturb the court’s credibility determinations *(see Matter of Everett C. v Oneida R,*61 AD3d 489 [1st Dept 2009]).

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Richter, Moskowitz, Feinman and Gische, JJ.
RE: Major sources under Rule 4652 - coatings and ink manufacturing? 

Stanley Tong to: Joven Nazareno 01/12/2010 04:28 PM

Cc: "Anna Myers", "George Heinen", "Sandra Lowe-Leseth", Nicole Law

Joe,

Thanks for the clarification that there are no ink, and no major coating manufacturers in SJV.

Stan

Stanley Tong

U.S. EPA Region IX

Rules Office (AIR-4)

75 Hawthorne St.

San Francisco, CA 94105

415-947-4122 -voice

415-947-3579 -fax

"Joven Nazareno" Rio Bravo being listed in the table below as a so... 01/12/2010 04:12:39 PM

From: "Joven Nazareno" <joven.nazareno@valleyair.org>

To: Stanley Tong/R9/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: "George Heinen" <george.heinen@valleyair.org>, "Sandra Lowe-Leseth" 

<Sandra.LoweLeseth@valleyair.org>, "Anna Myers" <Anna.Myers@valleyair.org>

Date: 01/12/2010 04:12 PM

Subject: RE: Major sources under Rule 4652 - coatings and ink manufacturing?

Rio Bravo being listed in the table below as a source subject to rule 4652 is a typo. I checked our permit 

database and found 4 paint manufacturers in the Valley but they are not major sources. There is no ink 

manufacturer in the Valley. The 4 paint manufacturing companies are:

Ponderosa Paint Co. (permit C1987)

Michelman, Inc. (permit C3658)

Pioneer paint Co. (permit S1076)

Ennis Paint Inc. (permit S3516)

Hope this helps EPA.

Joe

Joven R. Nazareno

Senior Air Quality Engineer

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District

1990 E. Gettysburg Ave., Fresno, CA 93726

Phone: (559) 230-6100

From: Tong.Stanley@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Tong.Stanley@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 2:02 PM

To: Joven Nazareno
Subject: Major sources under Rule 4652 - coatings and ink manufacturing?

Joe,

SJ's RACT SIP did an analysis of Rule 4652. 

Table 3-1, only lists 1 source, #1820, Rio Bravo Fresno for the rule, but its an electrical co-gen station, 

which doesn't make sense. 

Can you verify you have a major source covered under 4652 because the rule has not been submitted for 

SIP approval based on CARB's 

and our databases. Thanks. 

Stan

Stanley Tong

U.S. EPA Region IX

Rules Office (AIR-4)

75 Hawthorne St.

San Francisco, CA 94105

415-947-4122 -voice

415-947-3579 -fax
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Cornell Hoffman, Appellant.

[768 NYS2d 651]

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kron, J.), rendered June 25, 2002, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts), robbery in the second degree (three counts), and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the evidence adduced at trial was legally insufficient to establish his identity as one of the robbers is unpreserved for appellate review since he did not specify that ground in his motion to dismiss at trial *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Gray,*86 NY2d 10 [1995]; *People v Udzinski,*146 AD2d 245 [1989]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s identity and guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the trier of fact, which saw and heard the witnesses *(see People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94 [1903]; *People v Caban,*120 AD2d 603 [1986]). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record *(see People v Garafolo,*44 AD2d 86, 88 [1974]). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see CPL*470.15 [5]). Santucci, J.P., Krausman, Cozier and Mastro, JJ., concur.
#### Ripplewood Advisors, LLC, Respondent, v Callidus Capital SIA et al., Appellants.

[54 NYS3d 291]

*612Order, Supreme Court, New York County (O. Peter Sherwood, J.), entered February 28, 2017, which denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) and 327 (a), unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

New York does not have personal jurisdiction over defendants pursuant to CPLR 302 (a) (1), as they did not avail themselves “of the privilege of conducting activities within [this] State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws” *(Fischbarg v Doucet,*9 NY3d 375, 380 [2007] [internal quotation marks omitted]). The telephone and email communications between the Latvian defendants and plaintiff’s office in New York, concerning a contemplated association in the acquisition of a Latvian bank (with no presence in New York) undergoing privatization, do not suffice to constitute the transaction of business in New York. In so concluding, we find it persuasive that defendants never entered New York in connection with their dealings with plaintiff, that the parties’ electronic communications also ran between defendants and plaintiff’s London office, that plaintiff traveled to Latvia in connection with this matter, and that the parties’ contemplated association (if the bank were acquired) would be centered in Latvia *(see e.g. SunLight Gen. Capital LLC v CJS Invs. Inc.,*114 AD3d 521, 522 [1st Dept 2014]).

Plaintiff’s argument that “the sharply conflicting affidavits submitted by the parties . . . required a jurisdictional hearing” *(Shea v Hambro Am.,*200 AD2d 371, 372 [1st Dept 1994]) is unpreserved. In any event, resolution in plaintiff’s favor of the parties’ factual disputes would not lead to a different result.

Even if personal jurisdiction existed over defendants, we would dismiss on the ground of forum non conveniens, in view of Latvia being the principal situs of the underlying transaction, the pendency in Latvia of an earlier-filed action between the same parties concerning this dispute, and the likely applicability of Latvian law under a grouping-of-contacts analysis *{see Zurich Ins. Co. v Shearson Lehman Hutton,*84 NY2d 309, 317 [1994]).

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Gische, Kapnick and Kahn, JJ.
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 18

- 00341

- CR

P ATRICK B IRCH C ALVERT

, Appellant

V

.

T HE S TATE OF T EXAS §

§

§

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 43rd District

Court

of Parker County ( CR16

- 0801 )

September 3 , 2020

Opinion by Chief Justice Sudderth

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of t he tr ial

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By

_ /s/ Bonnie Sudderth

_________________ Chief Justice Bonnie Suddert h
# DLA kicks off 2020 CFC campaign with $260,000 goal

/ Published Oct. 20, 2020
FORT BELVOIR, Va., 
Combined Federal Campaign charities help so many people in so many ways, even reaching the lives of federal employees and service members, a CFC loaned executive told Defense Logistics Agency Headquarters employees during a CFC kickoff ceremony Oct. 20.

“Twenty-four dollars shelters and cares for a homeless individual for the night. Forty-eight dollars sponsors nearly three days of clinical trials for a cancer patient. Forty-eight dollars also assists a veteran with one month of food and medication for a therapy dog,” Viju Dilley said.

DLA's 2020 goal is $260,000. Show Some Love remains the theme, and the agency's subtheme – Be the Face of Change – encourages employees to help make the world a better place for others.

“It’s so appropriate because it does all start with each and every one of you. That one face – one participant – can make a huge impact for such a myriad of causes,” said Jeff Zotolla, DLA Finance vice director and vice chair for DLA’s campaign.

DLA employees in the national capital region donated over $274,000 of the $34 million contributed in that area during the 2019 campaign. An additional $1 million was raised through the special solicitation in spring to help charities serving those in need during the pandemic.

DLA Director Navy Vice Adm. Michelle Skubic said employees’ contributions are more important this year than ever.

“As federal employees, we’ve been fortunate to remain employed during the pandemic. Others have not been so lucky and have had to rely on the support of CFC charitable organizations to make it through these challenging times,” she said.

CFC is the world’s largest, most successful workplace charity campaign. Donors can choose from over 20,000 nonprofit charitable organizations that support causes ranging from homeless veterans and endangered species to cancer. Since it began in 1961, federal employees have raised over $8.4 billion.

Employees can donate through Jan. 15 by credit card or payroll deduction on a one-time or reoccurring basis at GiveCFC.org or the CFC Giving Mobile App on their Apple or Android cell phone. Both options are secure and allow users to search for specific charities or view a list of organizations that support specific categories in their choice of geographic locations. Employees can also donate volunteer hours rather than money by selecting a charity with a hand icon next to it.

Each week throughout the campaign will be dedicated to raising awareness for causes like ending hunger, environmental protection and human rights. For more information, go to GiveCFC.org or contact a keyworker in your directorate.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Donald DeSusa, Appellant.

[57 NYS3d 142]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barbara F. Newman, J. at mistrial declaration; Seth L. Marvin, J. at jury trial and sentencing), rendered December 16, 2013, convicting defendant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 5 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v*Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s credibility determinations. It does not avail defendant to rely on statements made at arraignment and hearing testimony that were not adduced at trial *(see People v Dukes,*284 AD2d 236 [1st Dept 2001], *lv denied*97 NY2d 681 [2001]).

The court properly exercised its discretion in declaring a mistrial sua sponte before the completion of jury selection, over both parties’ objections, because of a scheduling problem that was unavoidable given the information available to the court at the time *(see People v Chandler,*30 AD3d 161 [1st Dept 2006], *lv denied*7 NY3d 786 [2006]).

Defendant’s challenge to a jury charge to the effect that the People were not obligated to present certain kinds of evidence is unpreserved, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we reject it on the merits (see *People v Jiovani,*258 AD2d 277 [1st Dept 1999], *lv denied*93 NY2d 900 [1999]).

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Mazzarelli, Moskowitz, Gische and Gesmer, JJ.
No. 09-9085.

#### Richard Lee, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 801, 131 S. Ct. 66,

178 L. Ed. 2d 1,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6629.

October 4, 2010.

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for writ of certiorari granted. Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit for further consideration in light of that court’s en banc opinion in United States v. Corner, 598 F.3d 411 (CA7 2010).

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion and this petition.

Same case below, 352 Fed. Appx. 112.
No. 09-10932.

#### Bernard Hill, Petitioner v. Matthew Cate, Secretary, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

562 U.S. 856, 131 S. Ct. 121,

178 L. Ed. 2d 74,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6317.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
*September 1,*2017

2017-Ohio-7439.]

2017-1212.

#### State v. Rigel.

Clark App. No. 2016-CA-50, 2017-Ohio-6906. Sua sponte, appellee ordered to file a response, if any, to appellant’s motion for stay no later than 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, September 6, 2017.