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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
     financial statements contained in the Registrant's Quarterly Report on
     Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 1998, and is qualified in its
     entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                              28,898
<SECURITIES>                                     4,439,387
<RECEIVABLES>                                      975,382
<ALLOWANCES>                                       109,773
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,304,996
<PP&E>                                             152,303
<DEPRECIATION>                                     123,107
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   5,837,629
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,542,862
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            86,473
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,208,294
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     5,837,629
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   401,401
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   619,714
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    15,703
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  47,505
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    341,409
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (150,550)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (71,722)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (71,722)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (.02)
        


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2




                  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                              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 Weston Technologies Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2003, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Periodic
Report"), I, Isaacs K. Li, Chief 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:

    1.   the Periodic 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 Periodic Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company.


Dated:  April 19, 2004


/s/ Isaacs K. Li
------------------------
Isaacs K. Li
Chief Executive Officer
#### In the Matter of Abby Murray, Appellant, v Long Island University, C.W. Post Center, Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Stark, J.), dated September 30, 1983, which dismissed a petition to vacate or modify an arbitration award and granted the respondent’s cross application to confirm said award.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Petitioner’s allegations that the arbitrator exceeded his power or made an award on a matter not submitted are without merit. The collective bargaining agreement restricted the arbitrator to the determination of procedural issues only. However, the facts clearly show that he did not pass upon the merits of respondent’s decision not to reappoint petitioner as a teacher. Indeed, the few brief references in the arbitrator’s opinion to the allegations of petitioner’s inadequacy were made exclusively for the purpose of *176determining a proper award *after*the arbitrator found that respondent was guilty of a procedural violation of the agreement. No finding was ever made concerning whether petitioner’s performance was in fact inadequate.

Moreover, we are not persuaded by petitioner’s contention that the monetary award was “irrational” and that the only proper remedy here was reinstatement. Arbitrators have great discretion in fashioning remedies for aggrieved parties, and they are not bound by substantive rules of law in fixing their awards *(Matter of Silverman [Benmor Coats],*61 NY2d 299; *Lentine v Fundaro,*29 NY2d 382). Under the present facts, it cannot be said that the instant award was “irrational” or that it violated any provisions of the collective bargaining agreement.

Finally, petitioner’s arguments that the award was based upon a mistake of fact and that it was punitive in nature are also unpersuasive. It is well established that an arbitrator’s award will not be vacated on the ground that it contains errors of law or fact *(see, Matter of Long. Is. Univ. Faculty Fedn. v Board of Trustees,*91 AD2d 686, *affd*60 NY2d 855; *Matter of Riverbay Corp. [Local 32-E],*91 AD2d 509). Furthermore, the award was clearly compensatory and not punitive *(see, Board of Educ. v Niagara-Wheatfield Teachers Assn.,*46 NY2d 553). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of Special Term. Titone, J. P., Mangano, Weinstein and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF  CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER  OF PACIFIC ENERGY MANAGEMENT LLC  PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and in connection with the accompanying report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2005 that is being filed concurrently with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned officer of Pacific Energy Management LLC, general partner of
Pacific Energy GP, LP, which is the general partner of Pacific Energy Partners, L.P. and Subsidiaries (the "Partnership") hereby certifies that:



| | /s/GERALD A. TYWONIUKGerald A. Tywoniuk
March 10, 2006
| | ------------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 6D2023-2760

Lower Tribunal No. 2020-CF-001543-BXXX-XX

_____________________________

KAEDRYN STUBBS,

Appellant, 

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Collier County.

John McGowan, Judge.

July 30, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

TRAVER, C.J., and WHITE, J., and LAMBERT, B.D. Associate Judge, concur.

Robert David Malove, of The Law Office of Robert David Malove, P.A., Fort 

Lauderdale, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Cynthia Richards, Assistant 

Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING 

AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 933 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 933

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend and increase the 
exclusion for benefits provided to volunteer firefighters and emergency 
                          medical responders.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 10, 2011

  Mr. Schumer (for himself and Ms. Collins) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend and increase the 
exclusion for benefits provided to volunteer firefighters and emergency 
                          medical responders.

    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 the ``Volunteer Responder Incentive 
Protection Reauthorization Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. BENEFITS PROVIDED TO VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS AND EMERGENCY 
              MEDICAL RESPONDERS.

    (a) Increase in Dollar Limitation on Qualified Payments.--
Subparagraph (B) of section 139B(c)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 is amended by striking ``$30'' and inserting ``$50''.
    (b) Extension.--Subsection (d) of section 139B of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``December 31, 2010'' and 
inserting ``December 31, 2013''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2010.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2020287EN.01002602.xml

| 31.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/26

---

Appeal brought on 29 July 2019 by GMP-Orphan (GMPO) against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 16 May 2019 in Case T-733/17, GMPO v Commission

(Case C-575/19 P)

(2020/C 287/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: GMP-Orphan (GMPO) (represented by: J. Mulryne, L. Tsang, Solicitors, C. Schoonderbeek, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

By order of 11 June 2020, the Court of Justice (Ninth Chamber) decided that the appeal should be dismissed as being manifestly inadmissible and ordered GMP-Orphan SA to bear its own costs.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
CONSOLIDATED  CONDENSED  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS OF YOUNG & RUBICAM AND SUBSIDIARY
COMPANIES  FOUND IN THE  COMPANY'S  FORM 10-Q AS OF AND FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED
JUNE 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH  FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001030048
<NAME>                        Young & Rubicam Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     US DOLLAR

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                 DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                    JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                      JUN-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                             1
<CASH>                                            173,256,000
<SECURITIES>                                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   1,033,156,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                       24,223,000
<INVENTORY>                                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                1,419,013,000
<PP&E>                                            453,186,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                    263,824,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  2,364,769,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           1,665,189,000
<BONDS>                                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                       0
<PREFERRED>                                                 0
<COMMON>                                              734,000
<OTHER-SE>                                        249,898,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    2,364,769,000
<SALES>                                                     0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  943,291,000
<CGS>                                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     833,733,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (12,155,000)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  8,119,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   113,594,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                       45,438,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                69,055,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                             0
<CHANGES>                                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                       69,055,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                              0.95
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0.83


</TABLE>
#### WILLIAMS V. ALABAMA STATE LAND CO.

*Ejectment.*

(Decided Nov. 28, 1907.)

Appeal from Tuscaloosa County Court.

Heard before Hon. H. B. Foster.

Ward & Ward, for 'appellant.

Henry Fitts, for appellee.

Per curiam.

Dismissed for want of prosecution.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED INTERIM CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF MINERA ANDES INC. FOR THE
THREE-MONTH PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         327,025
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               347,345
<PP&E>                                       4,441,964
<DEPRECIATION>                                 143,960
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,645,349
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          215,561
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    18,027,623
<OTHER-SE>                                (13,597,835)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,645,349
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               130,294
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (130,294)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (130,294)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (130,294)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.00)


</TABLE>
#### City of New York et al., Appellants, v Greenwich Insurance Company et al., Respondents.

[945 NYS2d 83]—

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey K. Oing, J.), entered April 19, 2011, which denied plaintiffs’ cross motion for summary judgment declaring that defendant has a duty to defend and indemnify plaintiffs, and denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant the cross motion and declare that *733defendant insurer has a duty to defend and indemnify plaintiffs in the underlying personal injury action, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Under Insurance Law § 3420 (d) (2), an insurer wishing to deny coverage for death or bodily injury must “give written notice as soon as is reasonably possible of such disclaimer of liability or denial of coverage.” “When an insurer fails to do so, it is precluded from disclaiming coverage based upon late notice, even where the insured has in the first instance failed to provide the insurer with timely notice of the accident” *(Hunter Roberts Constr. Group, LLC v Arch Ins. Co.,*75 AD3d 404, 408-409 [2010]). Although the timeliness of such a disclaimer generally presents a question of fact, where the basis for the disclaimer was, or should have been, readily apparent before the onset of the delay, any explanation by the insurer for its delay will be insufficient as a matter of law *(see First Fin. Ins. Co. v Jeteo Contr. Corp.,*1 NY3d 64, 69 [2003]).

Even assuming that some investigation was necessary, as plaintiffs’ May 17, 2007 notice of claim letter contained only the date of loss and did not indicate when plaintiffs first learned of the subject accident, Greenwich’s investigation did not even begin until June 21, 2007, more than 31 days after receipt of the May 17, 2007 letter, and continued for approximately five and one half months. Despite the fact that the dates on which plaintiffs responded to Greenwich are disputed, insurers have a duty to “expedite” the disclaimer process *(First Fin. Ins. Co.,*1 NY3d at 68), and Greenwich does not explain, given the facts made known by Temco’s May 17, 2007 submission, “why anything beyond a cursory investigation” was necessary to determine whether plaintiffs had timely notified it of the claim *(Hunter Roberts Constr. Group,*75 AD3d at 409). Accordingly, the 5V2-month delay in disclaiming on this ground was unreasonable as a matter of law. Concur — Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Renwick, Freedman and Abdus-Salaam, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2011 NY Slip Op 31008(U).]
# C_2019295EN.01000602.xml

| 2.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/6

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 24 June 2019 — Veronsaajien oikeudenvalvontayksikkö

(Case C-480/19)

(2019/C 295/10)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: E

Other party: Veronsaajien oikeudenvalvontayksikkö

Question referred

Are Articles 63 and 65 TFEU to be interpreted as meaning that they preclude a national interpretation according to which income received by a natural person residing in Finland from an undertaking for collective investment in transferable securities based in another Member State of the Union and constituted in accordance with statute within the meaning of the Investment Fund Directive 2009/65/EC (1) (UCITS fund in the form of an investment company) is not, for the purposes of income tax, treated in the same way as income received from a Finnish investment fund constituted in accordance with contract law within the meaning of the same Directive (UCITS fund in contract form), because the legal form of the UCITS located in the other Member State does not correspond to the legal structure of the national investment fund?

---

(1)  Directive 2009/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS) (OJ 2009 L 302, p. 32).

---
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 91 

To implement equal protection under the 14th article of amendment to the 

Constitution for the right to life of each born and preborn human person. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 25 (legislative day, JANUARY 5), 2011 

Mr. WICKER (for himself, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. ENZI, Mr. BURR, Mr. VITTER, 

Mr. COBURN, Mr. THUNE, Mr. RISCH, Mr. COATS, Mr. BLUNT, Mr. 

MORAN, Mr. BOOZMAN, and Mr. PAUL) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To implement equal protection under the 14th article of 

amendment to the Constitution for the right to life of 

each born and preborn human person. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Life at Conception 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. RIGHT TO LIFE. 

7 To implement equal protection for the right to life 

8 of each born and preborn human person, and pursuant 

9 to the duty and authority of the Congress, including ConVerDate Mar 15 2010 21:10 Jan 28, 2011 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S91.IS S91

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 91 IS

1 gress’ power under article I, section 8, to make necessary 

2 and proper laws, and Congress’ power under section 5 of 

3 the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution of the 

4 United States, the Congress hereby declares that the right 

5 to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each 

6 human being. 

7 SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS. 

8 For purposes of this Act: 

9 (1) HUMAN PERSON; HUMAN BEING.—The 

10 terms ‘‘human person’’ and ‘‘human being’’ include 

11 each and every member of the species homo sapiens 

12 at all stages of life, including, but not limited to, the 

13 moment of fertilization, cloning, and other moment 

14 at which an individual member of the human species 

15 comes into being. 

16 (2) STATE.—The term ‘‘State’’ used in the 

17 14th article of amendment to the Constitution of the 

18 United States and other applicable provisions of the 

19 Constitution includes the District of Columbia, the 

20 Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and each other terri21 tory or possession of the United States. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS