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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM AHL
SERVICES, INC.  CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT JUNE 30, 1997 AND THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30,
1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997              
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           3,298
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   35,503
<ALLOWANCES>                                       420
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                44,014
<PP&E>                                          17,136
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,253
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  62,908
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           22,646
<BONDS>                                          7,808
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           109
<OTHER-SE>                                      29,305
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    62,908
<SALES>                                        124,194
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               124,194
<CGS>                                           92,769
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   92,769
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                27,309
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    60
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 818
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,480
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,375
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,105
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    385
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,720
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .17
        

</TABLE>
Case 10-00363 Doc 34 Filed 07/22/10 Entered 07/22/10 15:48:44 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 3
Case 10-00363 Doc 34 Filed 07/22/10 Entered 07/22/10 15:48:44 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 3
Case 10-00363 Doc 34 Filed 07/22/10 Entered 07/22/10 15:48:44 Desc Main

 Document Page 3 of 3
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER



PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In connection with this Quarterly Report of Premier Holding Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jack Gregory, the Chief Executive 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 my knowledge:





1.   Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending September 30, 2009, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending September 30, 2009, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







|Date:  September 9, 2010 | Jack Gregory
Chief Executive Officer and Director
|------------------------ | -------------------------------------------------
# C_2022463EN.01004301.xml

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/43

---

Order of the General Court of 5 October 2022 — Homoki v Commission

(Case T-517/19 INTP) (1)

(Interpretation of a judgment - Inadmissiblity)

(2022/C 463/61)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: Andrea Homoki (Gyál, Hungary) (represented by: T. Hüttl, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Béres and A. Spina, acting as Agents)

Re:

By her application under Article 168 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the applicant asks the General Court to interpret the judgment of 1 September 2021, Homoki v Commission (T-517/19, not published, EU:T:2021:529).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The request for interpretation is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The request for interpretation is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Ms Andrea Homoki is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Ms Andrea Homoki is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 328, 30.9.2019.

---
#### In the Matter of Alicia C., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.

[942 NYS2d 872]

— Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Nancy M. Bannon, J.), entered on or about October 25, 2010, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent upon a fact-finding determination that she committed acts that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of robbery in the third degree, grand larceny in the fourth degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and placed her with the Office of Children and Family Services for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s findings were based on legally sufficient evidence and were not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s determinations concerning identification, voluntariness and credibility. Appellant made a voluntary and reliable statement that corroborated the identification testimony given by the victim. Concur — Tom, J.E, Andrias, DeGrasse, Richter and Román, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Nathaniel Harrison, Appellant.

[943 NYS2d 891] —

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ruth Pickholz, J.), entered on or about December 17, 2009, which adjudicated defendant a level two sexually violent offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record supports the assessment of points for defendant’s history of drug abuse *(see e.g. People v Wilkens,*33 AD3d 399 [2006], *lv denied*8 NY3d 801 [2007]). In any event, regardless of whether defendant’s correct point score is 95 or 80, there is no basis for a discretionary downward departure to level one *(see People v Mingo,*12 NY3d 563, 568 n 2 [2009]; *People v Johnson,*11 NY3d 416, 421 [2008]). The seriousness of the underlying crime outweighs the mitigating factors asserted by defendant, which were adequately taken into account by the *687risk assessment instrument *(see e.g. People v Hansford,*67 AD3d 496 [2009]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Renwick, Freedman and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.
Case 1:01-cr-00561 Document 19 Filed 02/06/02 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:01-cr-00561 Document 19 Filed 02/06/02 Page 2 of 2
# C_2019187EN.01008501.xml

| 3.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 187/85 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.6.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 187/85

---

Action brought on 8 April 2019 — AW v Parliament

(Case T-213/19)

(2019/C 187/91)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: AW (represented by: L. Levi and S. Rodrigues, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the present action admissible and well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the present action admissible and well founded;

| — | annul the decisions dated 7 August 2018 adopted by the defendant, which reject the applicant’s requests for recognition of the occupational origin of two diseases (neck pain and stress-related urticaria) and, so far as necessary, annul the decision of 19 February 2019 by which the defendant rejected the complaint brought on 16 October 2018 by the applicant against the decisions of 7 August 2018; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decisions dated 7 August 2018 adopted by the defendant, which reject the applicant’s requests for recognition of the occupational origin of two diseases (neck pain and stress-related urticaria) and, so far as necessary, annul the decision of 19 February 2019 by which the defendant rejected the complaint brought on 16 October 2018 by the applicant against the decisions of 7 August 2018;

| — | order the defendant to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging the infringement of Article 22(3) of the Common rules on the insurance of officials of the European Communities against the risk of accident and of occupational disease (‘the Common Rules’), on account of procedural irregularities committed by the medical committee. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging the infringement of Article 22(3) of the Common rules on the insurance of officials of the European Communities against the risk of accident and of occupational disease (‘the Common Rules’), on account of procedural irregularities committed by the medical committee.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging the infringement of Article 22 of the Common Rules in conjunction with the infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, inasmuch as the medical committee did not act independently, but on the Parliament’s instructions. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging the infringement of Article 22 of the Common Rules in conjunction with the infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, inasmuch as the medical committee did not act independently, but on the Parliament’s instructions.

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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM NEOMAGIC
CORPORATION'S CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE SIX MONTH
PERIOD ENDING AUGUST 1, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-01-1999
<CASH>                                          39,178
<SECURITIES>                                    44,762
<RECEIVABLES>                                   18,742
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     23,075
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               129,572
<PP&E>                                          20,684
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,964
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 149,643
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           38,861
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            25
<OTHER-SE>                                     110,757
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   149,643
<SALES>                                        132,717
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               132,717
<CGS>                                           87,841
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   87,841
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                35,583<F1>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 470
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,539
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,768
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,771
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,771
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .22
<FN>
<F1>INCLUDES ONE-TIME CHARGE OF $5.3 MILLION FOR IN-PROCESS RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT.
</FN>


</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.2



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL
OFFICER



I, John J. Trizzino, certify that:



1.       I
have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K of Novavax, Inc.;



2.       Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary
to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to
the period covered by this report.



|Date: April 30, 2019 | By:                                                                                  | /s/ John J. Trizzino
|-------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | --------------------
|                     | Senior Vice President, Chief Business Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-09-00636-CR

Ivy Bennett NEWTON,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2007-CR-0930

Honorable Mary Román Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: November 11, 2009

DISMISSED

Appellant Ivy Bennett Newton pleaded nolo contendere to “deadly conduct-firearm” pursuant

to a plea bargain agreement. As part of his plea-bargain, appellant signed a separate “Waiver of

Appeal.” The trial court imposed sentence and signed a certificate stating that this “is a plea-bargain

case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). Appellant timely

filed a notice of appeal. The clerk’s record, which includes the plea bargain agreement and the trial
04-09-00636-CR

-2-

court’s Rule 25.2(a)(2) certification, has been filed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d). This court must

dismiss an appeal “if a certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been

made part of the record.” Id.

The court gave appellant notice that the appeal would be dismissed unless an amended trial

court certification showing he has the right to appeal were made part of the appellate record within

thirty days. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d); 37.1; Daniels v. State, 110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.–San

Antonio 2003, order), disp. on merits, No. 04-03-00176-CR, 2003 WL 21508347 (July 2, 2003, pet.

ref’d) (not designated for publication). Appellant’s appointed appellate counsel filed a written

response, stating she has reviewed the record and can find no right of appeal. After reviewing the

record and counsel’s notice, we agree that appellant does not have a right to appeal. See Dears v.

State, 154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (holding that court of appeals should review clerk’s

record to determine whether trial court’s certification is accurate). We therefore dismiss this appeal.

TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d). 

PER CURIAM

Do not publish
**Exhibit
          10.20**
  Director
        Fee Arrangements
 
 Fees
        for
        the non-employee directors of ITLA Capital Corporation (the “Company”) for 2006
        will continue to be $1,000 per Board or board committee meeting attended,
        plus a
        monthly retainer of $2,250. In addition, Preston Martin, the Chairman of
        the
        Audit Committee, will receive an annual retainer of $15,000 for his service
        in
        that capacity. At the discretion of the Compensation Committee of the Company’s
        Board of Directors, individual directors may also receive honorariums for
        additional work performed on behalf of the Company. The honorariums paid
        to
        directors for 2005 were as follows: (i) an honorarium of $5,000 to Director
        Robert Reed for his active assistance with legislative matters; (ii) an
        honorarium of $5,000 to Director Jeffrey Lipscomb for his active assistance
        with
        compensation matters; and (iii) an honorarium of $15,000 to Director Hirotaka
        Oribe for his extensive work with the Executive Committee.
III 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 177 

Designating the week of May 15 through May 21, 2011, as ‘‘National Public 

Works Week’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 10, 2011 

Mrs. BOXER (for herself and Mr. INHOFE) submitted the following resolution; 

which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Designating the week of May 15 through May 21, 2011, 

as ‘‘National Public Works Week’’. 

Whereas public works infrastructure, facilities, and services 

are of vital importance to the health, safety, and wellbeing of the people of the United States; 

Whereas the public works infrastructure, facilities, and services could not be provided without the dedicated efforts 

of public works professionals, including engineers and administrators, who represent State and local governments 

throughout the United States; 

Whereas public works professionals design, build, operate, 

and maintain the transportation systems, water infrastructure, sewage and refuse disposal systems, public 

buildings, and other structures and facilities that are 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 177 IS 

vital to the people and communities of the United States; 

and 

Whereas understanding the role that public infrastructure 

plays in protecting the environment, improving public 

health and safety, contributing to economic vitality, and 

enhancing the quality of life of every community of the 

United States is in the interest of the people of the 

United States: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) designates the week of May 15 through May 

3 21, 2011, as ‘‘National Public Works Week’’; 

4 (2) recognizes and celebrates the important 

5 contributions that public works professionals make 

6 every day to improve— 

7 (A) the public infrastructure of the United 

8 States; and 

9 (B) the communities that public works 

10 professionals serve; and 

11 (3) urges individuals and communities through12 out the United States to join with representatives of 

13 the Federal Government and the American Public 

14 Works Association in activities and ceremonies that 

15 are designed— 

16 (A) to pay tribute to the public works pro17 fessionals of the United States; and 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•SRES 177 IS 

1 (B) to recognize the substantial contribu2 tions that public works professionals make to 

3 the United States. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
# C_2021502EN.01004201.xml

| 13.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 502/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 502/42

---

Order of the General Court of 18 October 2021 — Smiths Group and Siti 1 v Commission

(Case T-714/19) (1)

(2021/C 502/63)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 10, 13.1.2020.

---
#### Kevin REID, Petitioner-Appellant, v. D.K. SISTO, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 10-16543.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 12, 2011.*

Filed July 13, 2011.

Kevin Reid, Vacaville, CA, pro se.

Pamela B. Hooley, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Kevin Reid appeals pro se the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

We assume there is jurisdiction, and consider Reid’s contention that the Governor’s 2005 decision to deny him parole was not supported by “some evidence” and therefore violated his due process rights. The only federal right at issue in the parole context is procedural, and the only proper inquiry is what process the inmate received, not whether the state court decided the case correctly. *Swarthout v. Cooke,*— U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 859, 863, 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011); *Roberts v. Hartley,*640 F.3d 1042, 1045-47 (9th Cir.2011) (applying Cooke). Because Reid raises no federal procedural challenges, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
USOO6101\81YA

UNITED STATES PATENT DeBaene et al.

r19]

[11] Patent Number: 6,108,819 [45] Date of Patent: Aug. 29, 2000

[54] PANTS WITH DETACHABLE BACK SUPPORT

[76] Inventors: David DeBaene, 60 Peters La.; Steev Panneton, 358 Washington
St., both of West Warwick, R.I. 02891

[21] App1. No.: 09/198,646 [22] Filed: Nov. 24, 1998

RELATED U.S. APPLICATION DATA

[63] Continuation of application No. 09/l03,894, Jun. 24, 1998.

[51] Int. CI.7 A61F 5102; A41D 1106; A41D 13/02
[52] U.S. CI. 2/227; 2/237; 2/44 [58] Field of Search 2144,227,231,
2/236, 237; 602/19

[52] U.S. CI. [58] FIELD OF SEARCH

r61

REFERENCES CITED
U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS
4,813,080 311989 Toso .
4,833,730 511989 Nelson .
5,038,408 811991 Debaene .
5,105,474 4/1992 SKINNER .
5,157,790 10/1992 A1DRIDGE .
5,398,667 3/1995 WITT .
5,402,539 4/1995 HEWITT .
5,450,627 9/1995 GRI1LIOT ET A1.
5,471,680 12/1995 VESTERINEN .
5,634,215 6/1997 DEBAENE .
5-819.320 10/1998 JOLLA .

PRIMARY EXAMINER-JOHN J. Calvert
ASSISTANT EXAMINER-SHIRRA L. Jenkins
ATTORNEY, AGENT, OR FINN-WOLF, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C.

[57] ABSTRACT

Pants for use when  performing  work  involving  heavy lifting  which  providing
removable  back  support  to the  wearer.  The  pants  are  constructed  with an
attachment  apparatus,  such as  Velcro@  brand  hook  and  loop  type  fastener
material,  affixed to the waist area. A back support is also provided  which has
an attachment  apparatus designed to fasten securely to the attachment apparatus
of the pants.  While attached to the pants the back support is  comfortable  and
remains in a supportive  position,  yet may be  easily removed  when unnecessary
or when cleaning the pants.

15 CLAIMS, 3 DRAWING SHEETS
<PAGE>   1
                                  EXHIBIT 11.1

                              Year Ended March 31,


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                        1998            1997            1996
                                    ------------    ------------    ------------
<S>                                  <C>            <C>             <C>
Net income (loss)                    $(8,649,618)   $(17,950,301)   $  1,232,024
Weighted average common shares
  outstanding                          9,626,335       9,322,278       6,606,499
                                    ------------    ------------    ------------
Net income (loss) per share          $     (6.90)   $      (0.85)   $       0.l9
                                    ============    ============    ============
</TABLE>