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

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          62,855
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   31,158
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,500
<INVENTORY>                                      1,656
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               173,247
<PP&E>                                         319,025
<DEPRECIATION>                                 129,903
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 781,354
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,734,993
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        13,843
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,044,978)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   781,354
<SALES>                                        161,468
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               161,468
<CGS>                                           24,800
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  605,119
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (150,299)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              40,704
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (358,856)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (358,856)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (358,856)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.03)


</TABLE>
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1276 

CA 10-02483 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, GREEN, GORSKI, AND MARTOCHE, JJ. 

 

CAROLYN FLATTERY, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS 

ATTORNEY-IN-FACT OF KEVIN FLATTERY, 

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, 

V ORDER

KAILASH C. LALL, M.D., JOHN N. BRACH, M.D., 

CATHOLIC HEALTH SYSTEM, DOING BUSINESS AS 

MERCY HOSPITAL OF BUFFALO, AND SOUTHTOWNS 

RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES, LLC, 

DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS. 

 

HAMSHER & VALENTINE, BUFFALO (RICHARD P. VALENTINE OF COUNSEL), FOR

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT. 

BROWN & TARANTINO, LLC, BUFFALO (ANN M. CAMPBELL OF COUNSEL), FOR

DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT KAILASH C. LALL, M.D. 

GIBSON, MCASKILL & CROSBY, LLP, BUFFALO (SALLY J. BROAD OF COUNSEL),

FOR DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS JOHN N. BRACH, M.D. AND SOUTHTOWNS

RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES, LLC. 

DAMON MOREY LLP, BUFFALO (AMY ARCHER FLAHERTY OF COUNSEL), FOR

DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT CATHOLIC HEALTH SYSTEM, DOING BUSINESS AS MERCY

HOSPITAL OF BUFFALO. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Timothy

J. Walker, A.J.), entered September 7, 2010 in a medical malpractice

action. The order granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in the decision

at Supreme Court. 

Entered: December 30, 2011 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2784 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2784

    To clarify section 224 of the Communications Act of 1934 as not 
limiting the ability of a State to adopt a one touch make ready policy 
             for pole attachments, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 16, 2019

  Ms. Eshoo introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To clarify section 224 of the Communications Act of 1934 as not 
limiting the ability of a State to adopt a one touch make ready policy 
             for pole attachments, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as ``Clearing Local Impediments Makes 
Broadband Open to New Competition and Enhancements'' or the ``CLIMB 
ONCE Act''.

SEC. 2. STATE ADOPTION OF ONE TOUCH MAKE READY POLICY FOR POLE 
              ATTACHMENTS.

    (a) Construction.--Nothing in section 224 of the Communications Act 
of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 224) or the implementing rules of the Federal 
Communications Commission shall be construed to limit the ability of a 
State to adopt a one touch make ready policy with respect to pole 
attachments.
    (b) Development of Model Policy.--Not later than 180 days after the 
date of the enactment of this Act, the Commission shall publish 
recommendations on best practices, including a model policy, relating 
to the implementation of a one touch make ready policy by a State.
    (c) Definitions.--In this section:
            (1) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Federal 
        Communications Commission.
            (2) One touch make ready policy.--The term ``one touch make 
        ready policy'' means, with respect to the addition or 
        modification of a pole attachment, regulations relating to the 
        activity undertaken in order to prepare the pole, duct, 
        conduit, or right-of-way for the addition of a new attachment 
        including the ability of an attacher to perform all make ready 
        work in a single trip to the pole and a requirement of the 
        designation by a pole owner or utility of a list of at least 
        two approved contractors for each pole, duct, conduit, or 
        right-of-way to perform all such activity.
            (3) Pole attachment; state; utility.--The terms ``pole 
        attachment'', ``State'', and ``utility'' have the meanings 
        given those terms in section 224(a) of the Communications Act 
        of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 224(a)).
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 24.3**
**POWER OF ATTORNEY**
      The undersigned director of both EaglePicher Holdings, Inc. and EaglePicher Incorporated herebyconsents to and appoints Bert Iedema, Thomas R. Pilholski and David G. Krall, and each of them, ashis true and lawful attorneys-in-fact and agents with all power of substitution, for him and in hisname, place and stead, in any and all capacities, to sign the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the2004 fiscal year of both EaglePicher Holdings, Inc. and EaglePicher Industries, Inc., corporationsorganized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware and the State of Ohio respectively,and any and all amendments thereto, and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and alldocuments in connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to therequirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, granting unto said attorneys-in-fact andagents, and each of them, full power and authority to do and perform each and every act and thingrequisite and necessary to be done in and about the same as fully to all intents and purposes as hemight or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact andagents, or either of them, or their or his substitute or substitutes, may lawfully do or cause tobe done by virtue thereof.
      In Witness Whereof, the undersigned has hereunto set his hand on this 14th day of March, 2005.
/s/ PIERRE EVERAERT
No. 10-426.

#### Applera Corp., et al., Petitioners v. Enzo Biochem, Inc., et al.

562 U.S. 1106, 131 S. Ct. 847,

178 L. Ed. 2d 553,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9737.

December 13, 2010.

The Acting Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.

Same case below, 599 F.3d 1325.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Mike Oshinowo, Appellant.

[64 NYS3d 547]

An appeal having been taken to this Court by the above-named appellant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Ronald A. Zweibel, J. at plea; Mark Dwyer, J. at sentencing), rendered October 20, 2016, said appeal having been argued by counsel for the respective parties, due deliberation having been had thereon, and finding the sentence not excessive, it is unani*557mously ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same is hereby affirmed.

Concur—Tom, J.P., Friedman, Andrias and Gesmer, JJ.
163 A.3d 875

#### IN THE MATTER OF DAVID L. QUATRELLA AN ATTORNEY AT LAW (ATTORNEY NO. 032051981)

July 7, 2017

ORDER

DAVID L. QUATRELLA, formerly of SHELTON, CONNECTICUT, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1981, having pleaded guilty in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut to conspiracy to commit wire fraud in violation of 18 *U.S.C.*§ 371 and 18 *U.S.C.*§ 1343, and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that pursuant to *Rule*1:20—13(b)(1), DAVID L. QUATRELLA is temporarily suspended from the practice of law pending the final resolution of ethics proceedings against him, effective immediately and until the further Order of this Court; and it is further

ORDERED that DAVID L. QUATRELLA be restrained and enjoined from practicing law during the period of his suspension; and it is further

ORDERED that DAVID L. QUATRELLA comply with *Rule*1:20-20 dealing with suspended attorneys; and it is further

ORDERED that the entire record of this matter be made a permanent part of respondent’s file as an attorney at law of this state.
#### Fred Reitman, Appellant, v St. Francis Hospital et al., Respondents.

[767 NYS2d 843]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Pagones, J.), dated November 22, 2002, as granted the defendants’ respective motions to preclude expert witness “E” from testifying at the trial and to strike his amended bill of particulars and as denied those branches of his cross motions which were to deem the service of expert witness “E” disclosure and the amended bill of particulars before reinstatement of the note of issue to be proper, or alternatively, for leave to serve the amended bill of particulars.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law and as a matter of discretion, without costs or disbursements, the defendants’ respective motions to preclude expert “E” from testifying at the trial and to strike the amended bill of particulars are denied, and those branches of the plaintiff’s cross motions which were to deem the service of expert witness “E” disclosure and the amended bill of particulars before reinstatement of the note of issue to be proper are granted.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court’s vacatur of the plaintiffs note of issue pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.21 (e), upon the plaintiffs letter request, did not bar the plaintiff from engaging in reasonable further disclosure, including the service of expert disclosure and an amended bill of *430particulars *(see generally Carte v Segall,*134 AD2d 396 [1987]). Contrary to the defendants’ arguments, the case of *Lyons v Saperstein*(202 AD2d 401 [1994]), is not controlling here. In *Lyons,*the note of issue was not vacated, but the case was “marked off” the trial calendar to permit two discrete items of disclosure. As this Court held in *Basetti v Nour*(287 AD2d 126, 132 [2001]), a case marked off the calendar pursuant to CPLR 3404 does not automatically result in the vacatur of the note of issue. Thus, marking a case off pursuant to CPLR 3404 would not necessarily result in permission to conduct further disclosure and, therefore, the holding of that case is distinguishable from the case at bar.

Similarly, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the plaintiff’s cross motion which was to deem proper the service of the amended bill of particulars before reinstatement of the note of issue *(see*CPLR 3042 [b]). The amendment to the bill of particulars consisted merely of a specification of the more general statement in the original bill of particulars that the defendants were negligent in failing to administer, perform, and order treatments and procedures in order to prevent the injuries complained of. Santucci, J.P., Adams, Crane and Cozier, JJ., concur.
#### Com. v. Talbert 29

05/03/2016

20 EAL (2016)

29

. Justice DONOHUE did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.

Denied

Pa.Super., 129 A.3d 536
No. 10-7375.

#### Robert L. Scott, Petitioner v. Indiana.

562 U.S. 1152, 131 S. Ct. 939,

178 L. Ed. 2d 779,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 562.

January 10, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Indiana, Fifth District, denied.

Same case below, 924 N.E.2d 169.
COMPLETENESS CHECKLIST FOR 2008 0.075 ppm 8-HOUR OZONE

REASONABLY AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY (RACT) SIP SUBMITTAL

Planning Area: Ventura County Air Pollution Control District

Title 40 CFR, Part 51, Appendix V –

Criteria for Determining the Completeness

of Plan Submissions

Enclosed Notes

2.1 ADMINISTRATIVE MATERIALS

2.1(a) Submittal Letter from Governor's 

Designee 

Letter from Richard W. Corey, ARB EO 

to Jared Blumenfeld

2.1(b) Evidence of Adoption 

District Resolution dated June 10, 2014

and ARB EO

2.1(c) Legal Authority Citation 

District Resolution dated June 10, 2014

and ARB EO

2.1(d) Copy of Reasonably Available Control 

Technology (RACT) analysis  2014 RACT SIP Revision

2.1(e) Evidence of Compliance with State's 

Procedural Requirements 

SIP Completeness Checklist

APCD Rule Evaluation Form

2.1(f) Evidence of Public Notice Consistent with 

40 CFR part 51.102 

Certificate of Publication –

Public Notice dated April 3, 2014

2.1(g) Certification of Public Hearing in 

Accordance with Notice  District Resolution dated June 10, 2014

2.1(h) Compilation of Public Comments and 

Responses  No public comments

2.2 TECHNICAL SUPPORT

2.2(a) Identification of Regulated Pollutant  RACT Analysis

2.2(b) Identification of Attainment Area/Status  RACT Analysis

2.2(c), Estimate of Impact on Emissions, 

2.2(d), Demonstration Plan Protects NAAQS, 

2.2(e) Modeling Support

N/A

2.2(f)- Compliance/Enforcement and 

2.2(i) Justification N/A
#### Com. v. McGrath

08/10/2016

103 EAL (2016)

Denied

Pa.Super., 135 A.3d 646
Skip directly to site content Skip directly to search


Español  Other Languages


Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC twenty four seven. Saving Lives, Protecting People
 Search

		Submit


Project Connect








Case Study – Los Angeles						Print
																Related Pages
					The Health Research Association and the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health selected 12 schools at which to implement and evaluate the original iteration of Project Connect.
Case Study - Los Angeles Download the Los Angeles Project Connect Case Study
							
					
							Last Reviewed:  April 1, 2020						Source: 	Division of STD Prevention, National Center for HIV, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
					Facebook
        Twitter
        LinkedIn
        Syndicate homeProject Connect
Implementation Guideplus icon
Overview, Challenge, and Core Components
The Road Map – Key Action Steps
Sustainability, Lessons Learned, and Conclusion
Case Studiesminus icon
Detroit
Los Angeles
Tools


About CDC
					Contact Us
					800-232-4636
 Facebook Twitter Instagram LinkedIn Youtube Pinterest Snapchat
 CONTACT CDC
				Contact Us
							Call 800-232-4636
							Email Us
			ABOUT CDC
				About CDC
							Jobs
							Funding
			POLICIES
				Accessibility
							External Links
							Privacy
							Policies
							No Fear Act
							FOIA
							OIG
							Nondiscrimination
							Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
			CONNECT WITH US
				Facebook
								Twitter
								Instagram
								LinkedIn
							Youtube
								Pinterest
								Snapchat
								Email
			LANGUAGES
				Español
							繁體中文
							Tiếng Việt
							한국어
							Tagalog
							Русский
							العربية
							Kreyòl Ayisyen
							Français
							Polski
							Português
							Italiano
							Deutsch
							日本語
							فارسی
							English


U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
			Accessibility
			External Links
			Privacy
			Policies
			No Fear Act
			FOIA
			Nondiscrimination
			OIG
			Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
			USA.gov


Exit Notification / Disclaimer Policy Close
 Links with this icon  indicate that you are leaving the CDC website. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) cannot attest to the accuracy of a non-federal website.
				Linking to a non-federal website does not constitute an endorsement by CDC or any of its employees of the sponsors or the information and products presented on the website.
				You will be subject to the destination website's privacy policy when you follow the link.
				CDC is not responsible for Section 508 compliance (accessibility) on other federal or private website. Website Disclaimers
 Cancel Continue
Change in Terms Agreement



 Exhibit 10.27 
  
 CHANGE IN TERMS AGREEMENT 
  
 This Change in Terms Agreement (“Agreement”) is entered into as of June 28, 2004, between Deere Credit, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Deere”) and FC
Stone L.L.C., West Des Moines, Iowa 50266, an Iowa corporation (the “Borrower”). 
  
 Whereas, Deere is currently providing Borrower an Amended and Restate Unsecured Revolving Operating Facility (“Loan”) in the amount of $40,000,000 as governed by a Master Loan Agreement, dated
February 15, 2001 as amended by the Change in Terms Agreement to Master Loan Agreement dated March 15, 2002 and evidenced by an Amended and Restate Unsecured Revolving Operating Note (“Note”) in the amount of $40,000,000, dated March 15,
2002, and 
  
 Whereas, the Borrower has requested
modifications to the Loan granted by Deere including the request for a decrease of $500,000 in the amount of the Loan and Deere has approved the requested decrease making a total amended Loan of $39,500,000. 
  
 Therefore, the amount of the Loan will be decreased by the amount of
$500,000 making a total Loan of $39,500,000 and the amount of the Note shall be decreased to $39,500,000 wherein the principal paragraph of said Note shall be amended to read as follows: 
  
 FOR VALUE RECEIVED, FC STONE, L.L.C., an Iowa Corporation, of West Des Moines, Iowa (the “Borrower”),
promises to pay to the order of Deere Credit, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Lender”), at Lender’s office at such place as Lender may designate in writing, the principal sum of Thirty-Nine Million Five Hundred Thousand and 00/100
DOLLARS ($39,500,000), together with interest as provided in this Note, all in lawful money of the United States of America. 
  
 Except as expressly changed by this Agreement, the terms of the original obligation or obligations, including all agreements evidenced or securing the
obligation(s), remain unchanged and in full force and effect. 
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized officers as of the date first shown above. 
  

							
	Deere Credit, Inc.	  	FC Stone L.L.C.
				
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Brent D. Johnxon

	  	 By:
	 	 /s/ Robert V. Johnson


	 Title:
	 	 Portfolio Mgr.
	  	 Title:
	 	 Exec. V.P. and CFO
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 23.2



INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

The Board of Directors and Stockholders
Dynamics Research Corporation:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements on Form
S-8 (File Nos. 333-109973, 333-59706, 333-47838, 333-02805, 333-68548), of
Dynamics Research Corporation of our report dated March 26, 2003, with respect
to the consolidated balance sheet of Dynamics Research Corporation and
subsidiaries as of December 31, 2002, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, changes in stockholders' equity and comprehensive
income (loss) and cash flows for each of the years in the two-year period
ended December 31, 2002, and the related financial statement schedule, which
report is included in the December 31, 2003 annual report on Form 10-K of
Dynamics Research Corporation.


/s/ KPMG LLP
------------------------------
Boston, Massachusetts
March 15, 2004
No. 10-5869.

#### Cory D. Rigmaiden, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 940, 131 S. Ct. 354,

178 L. Ed. 2d 229,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7191.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
# DLA Distribution Corpus Christi celebrates employees at the ballfield 

/ Published July 29, 2016
CORPUS CHRISTI, Texas, 
DLA Distribution Corpus Christi, Texas, had its 4th Annual DLA Distribution night with the Corpus Christi Hooks- the AA affiliate of the Houston Astros- as they faced off with the Frisco Roughriders July 14that Whataburger Field.  

It was an evening of great weather, lots of cheering and happy baseball fans.  Kaylee Martinez, daughter of DLA Distribution Corpus Christi employee Gina Martinez, sang the Star Spangled Banner to the cheering of the crowd.  DLA Distribution Corpus Christi commander Army Lt. Col. Brian Richie was on the big screen during a salute to the veterans in the 4th inning.  

The Corpus Christi Hooks and Frisco Roughriders combined for four home runs, which ignited fireworks to the delight of the crowd.  

The event was voluntarily coordinated by DLA Distribution employees Arturo Flores and Troy Barker.  Hooks management reserved seating so all employees were together on the 3rd baseline adjacent to the team tunnel, very close in proximity to the baseball players.  

Robert Rosarius, the distribution center’s deputy commander, was in attendance and said “I look forward to this event every year.  During the game, as I [looked] around, I [saw] the camaraderie of our workforce binding and building.  There are always lots of smiles.  Work hard and play hard; this is an event the employees look forward to each season.”
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. §1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO§906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

 

The undersigned,Jeffrey A. Kupp, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of InetTechnologies, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that, to my knowledge:

 

1.               TheCompany’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31,2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.               Theinformation contained in the aforementioned Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.

 

 
| /s/ Jeffrey A. Kupp                         |   |
|---------------------------------------------|--------|
| Vice President and  Chief Financial Officer |
|                                        |
| April 21, 2004                         |

 

----