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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS IN THE QUARTERLY REPORT OF FORM 10-QSB OF AUDIOHIGHWAY.COM
FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                              25
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        4
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    29
<PP&E>                                             361
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     466
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,477
<BONDS>                                            275
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,971
<OTHER-SE>                                     (7,350)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       466
<SALES>                                             42
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    42
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   606
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 136
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (700)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (700)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (700)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.70)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.70)
        

</TABLE>
#### Julio Nieves, Appellant, v City of New York, Respondent.

[945 NYS2d 656] —

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lottie E. Wilkins, J.), entered on or about September 17, 2009, which granted defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 to dismiss the complaint, made before the close of the plaintiffs case, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, defendant’s motion denied, the complaint reinstated, and the matter remanded for a new trial. Appeal from an order, same court and Justice, entered April 22, 2010, which denied plaintiffs motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (2) and (3) to vacate the order entered on or about September 17, 2009, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as academic.

The order granting defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint is properly before this Court, as an appeal was taken from that order. In any event, we exercise our discretion to disregard any defect in the notice of appeal *(see*CPLR 5520 [c]).

Dismissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 4401, after the jury was impaneled, but before plaintiff had rested and his engineering expert had testified, was premature *(see Alevy v Uminer,*88 AD3d 477, 477-478 [2011]). “A motion for judgment as a matter of law is to be made at the close of an opposing party’s case or at any time on the basis of admissions *(see*CPLR 4401), and the grant of such a motion prior to the close of the opposing party’s case generally will be reversed as premature even if the ultimate success of the opposing party in the action is improbable” *(Burbige v Siben & Ferber,*89 AD3d 661, 662 [2011]). Here, the dismissal was not based on admissions by plaintiff and the judgment must be reversed and a new trial granted. Concur — Tom, J.E, Andrias, Renwick, DeGrasse and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.
# C_2019206EN.01002001.xml

| 17.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 206/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.6.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 206/20

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte dei Conti — Sezione Giurisdizionale per la Regione Puglia (Italy) lodged on 25 February 2019 — HB v Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale

(Case C-168/19)

(2019/C 206/24)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte dei Conti — Sezione Giurisdizionale per la Regione Puglia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: HB

Defendant: Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale

Question referred

Must Articles 18 TFEU and 21 TFEU be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which provides for the taxation, in that Member State, of the income of a person resident in another Member State who receives all of his income from the first Member State but who does not hold the nationality of the second Member State, without the benefit of the tax advantages provided by that second Member State?

---
EXHIBIT 99.2 

 

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 Annual Report of Altus Explorationss, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB/A for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Andrew B. Stewart, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief: 

- The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
- The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

 

/s/ Andrew B. Stewart

___________________________

Andrew B. Stewart

Principal Financial Officer

March 31, 2003
DISMISS; and Opinion Filed June 24, 2019.

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 19

- 00505

- CV

BODMD, INC. , Appellant

V. JAMES MEEHAN, BODMD MEDICAL GROUP (OK) P

. C

. , AND

CATALYST UTICA, PC , Appellees

On Appeal from the 380th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 380

- 06699

- 2018



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Whitehill, Partida

- Kipness, and Pedersen, III

Opinion by Justice Partida

- Kipness

Before the Court is appellant’s unopposed motion for voluntary dismissal of the appeal.

W e grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(1).

190505F.P05 /Robbie Partida

- Kipness/ ROBBIE PARTIDA

- KIPNESS JUSTICE– 2

– 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

BODMD, INC., Appellant

No. 05

- 19

- 00505

- CV V.

JAMES MEEHAN, BODMD MEDICAL GROUP (OK) P.C., AND CATALYST UTICA, PC, Appellees On Appeal from the 380th Judicial Distric t Court, Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 380

- 06699

- 2018. Opinion delivered by Justice Partida

Kipness, Justices Whitehill and Pedersen, III participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.

We ORDER that appellees James Meehan, BodMD Medical Group (OK) P.C., and Catalyst Utica, PC recover their costs, if any, of this appeal from appellant BodMD, Inc.

Judgment entered this 24th day of June, 2019.
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the annual report on Form 10-K of Crum & Forster Holdings Corp., (the Company)
for the year ended December 31, 2004 (the Report) as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof, I, Mary Jane Robertson, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial
Officer and Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as enacted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  1.
    this Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    the information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Dated:  March 4, 2005
    By:
    /s/
Mary Jane RobertsonMary Jane RobertsonExecutive Vice President,
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer 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 Securities and Exchange
Commission, or its staff, upon request.
#### The People ex rel. The Peerless Manufacturing Company, Respondent, *v.*Patrick J. Gleason, as Mayor, etc., of Long Island City, Appellant.

Argued and decided with *People ex*rel. *Couglilim,*v. *Glea*son, ante, page. 631.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<CIK> 0000714719
<NAME> FIRST COLONIAL GROUP
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          13,984
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                              93
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     66,494
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          18,265
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            18,380
<LOANS>                                        233,151
<ALLOWANCE>                                      2,589
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 343,362
<DEPOSITS>                                     283,254
<SHORT-TERM>                                     7,951
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              5,586
<LONG-TERM>                                     18,432
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         8,219
<OTHER-SE>                                      19,920
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 343,362
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  9,671
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                2,641
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    30
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                12,342
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               4,486
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,235
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            7,107
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      300
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 234
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  6,323
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,099
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,516
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,516
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.94
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.94
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.72
<LOANS-NON>                                        668
<LOANS-PAST>                                     1,161
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 2,532
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      285
<RECOVERIES>                                        42
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                2,589
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             2,140
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            449
        

</TABLE>
#### In re Rafael VALDERRAMA, Petitioner.

No. 11-1136.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 19, 2011.

Decided: Aug. 11, 2011.

Rafael Valderrama, Petitioner Pro Se.

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Rafael Valderrama petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2011) motion. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. Our review of the district court’s docket reveals that the district court has recently resolved Valderra-ma’s § 2255 motion. Accordingly, because the district court has decided Valderrama’s case, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma*829terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*PETITION DENIED.*
# C_2019270EN.01001801.xml

| 12.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/18

---

Action brought on 16 May 2019 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-384/19)

(2019/C 270/20)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Manhaeve and E. Sanfrutos Cano, Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(1) and (5) and Article 15(1) of Directive 2007/60/EC (1) as regards river basin districts ES120 Gran Canaria, ES122 Fuerteventura, ES123 Lanzarote, ES124 Tenerife, ES125 La Palma, ES126 La Gomera and ES127 El Hierro; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(1) and (5) and Article 15(1) of Directive 2007/60/EC (1) as regards river basin districts ES120 Gran Canaria, ES122 Fuerteventura, ES123 Lanzarote, ES124 Tenerife, ES125 La Palma, ES126 La Gomera and ES127 El Hierro;

| — | declare that the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 10(1) and (2) of Directive 2007/60/EC as regards river basin districts ES120 Gran Canaria, ES122 Fuerteventura and ES125 La Palma; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 10(1) and (2) of Directive 2007/60/EC as regards river basin districts ES120 Gran Canaria, ES122 Fuerteventura and ES125 La Palma;

| — | order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

It is apparent the information provided by the Spanish authorities that Spain has not established, completed and published, by the 22 December 2015 deadline laid down in the Directive, flood risk management plans in respect of the river basin districts ES120 Gran Canaria, ES122 Fuerteventura, ES123 Lanzarote, ES124 Tenerife, ES125 La Palma, ES126 La Gomera and ES127 El Hierro. In addition, the Commission has not received a copy of those plans, as required by Article 15(1) of the Directive.

Furthermore, in three river basin districts — ES120 Gran Canaria, ES122 Fuerteventura and ES125 La Palma — the public information and consultation phase has not yet taken place or has not in any event been completed. Accordingly, the Commission considers that the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 10(1) and (2) of Directive 2007/60/EC as regards those three river basin districts.

---

(1)  Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on the assessment and management of flood risks (OJ 2007 L 288, p.27)

---