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

<ARTICLE>                  5
<MULTIPLIER>               1
       
<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                           JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                                JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                                          271,593
<SECURITIES>                                                  1,665,470
<RECEIVABLES>                                                 1,854,118
<ALLOWANCES>                                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                                   3,718,250
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                              7,877,054
<PP&E>                                                          364,354
<DEPRECIATION>                                                        0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                9,159,117
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                         1,934,766
<BONDS>                                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                                           0
<COMMON>                                                        105,603
<OTHER-SE>                                                    6,711,837
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                  9,159,117
<SALES>                                                      10,827,525
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                             10,827,525
<CGS>                                                         6,410,584
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                 4,399,425
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                               (110,471)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                               79,565
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                  48,422
<INCOME-TAX>                                                     19,368
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                              29,054
<DISCONTINUED>                                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                       0
<CHANGES>                                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                                     29,054
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                       .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                       .01
        



</TABLE>
November 6, 2014



### JUDGMENT


## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

STAFFORD MUNICIPAL S CHOOL DISTRICT , Appellant

NO. 14

- 13

- 00882

- CV V.

THE HANOVER INSURANCE COMPANY , Appellee

________________________________ This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of appellee, The Hanover Insurance Company, signed September 20, 2013, was heard on the transcript of the
record. We have inspected the record and find error

. We therefore order the judgment of the court below REVERSED and we RENDER judgment granting the plea to the jurisdiction filed by appellant, Stafford Municipal School District, and dismissing with prejudice the claims of appellee, The Hano ver Insurance Company

. We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by appellee, The Hanover Insurance Company.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
# C_2020137EN.01002901.xml

| 27.4.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 137/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 137/29

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) (Latvia) lodged on 27 December 2019 — SIA ‘OC Finance’ v Patērētāju tiesību aizsardzības centrs

(Case C-945/19)

(2020/C 137/39)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa (Senāts)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant at first instance and appellant on a point of law: SIA ‘OC Finance’

Respondent in the appeal proceedings: Patērētāju tiesību aizsardzības centrs

Questions referred

The questions referred for a preliminary ruling are identical to those in Case C-944/19.

---
III 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 13 

To require a two-fifths threshold to sustain a filibuster. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 5, 2011 

Mr. FRANKEN submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Rules and Administration 

RESOLUTION 

To require a two-fifths threshold to sustain a filibuster. 

1 Resolved, 

2 SECTION 1. AMENDMENT TO THE STANDING RULES OF THE 

3 SENATE. 

4 The second undesignated paragraph of paragraph 2 

5 of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate is 

6 amended by striking ‘‘And if that question shall be decided 

7 in the affirmative by three-fifths of the Senators duly cho8 sen and sworn’’ and inserting ‘‘And if that question is de9 cided in the affirmative and there are not negative votes 

10 by more than two-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and 

11 sworn’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Leonard Jones, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Rohl, J.), rendered July 22, 1983, convicting him of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the third degree, upon a guilty plea, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no meritorious issues which could be raised on this appeal. Counsel’s application to withdraw as counsel is granted (see, *Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). Weinstein, J. P., Rubin, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk December 28, 2011

y1219 

# Order

December 28, 2011

143488

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 143488 COA: 304010 Washtenaw CC: 75-009804-FY GERALD W. HUGHES, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appe al the June 30, 2011 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, a nd it is DENIED, because the defendant has
failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
          THIS FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
          EXTRACTED FROM THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF BIONX IMPLANTS, INC., AND
          IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERNCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                SEP-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           22,463
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     2,755
<ALLOWANCES>                                        111
<INVENTORY>                                       1,555
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 27,009
<PP&E>                                            1,004
<DEPRECIATION>                                      172
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   31,710
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             2,876
<BONDS>                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                             17
<OTHER-SE>                                       28,662
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     31,710
<SALES>                                          11,188
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 11,311
<CGS>                                             2,762
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     7,462
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 (459)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   1,546
<INCOME-TAX>                                        387
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   0
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                      1,159
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       .12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       .12
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.6





Exhibit 10.6


November 30, 2009


Sammy Cooper 

Newpark Resources, Inc. 

Vice President and
President, Newpark 

Environmental Services and Newpark Mats and Integrated Services 

2700 Research Forest
Drive, Suite 100 

The Woodlands, TX 77381


Re: Extension of salary reduction


Dear Sammy:


This letter sets forth the terms of our agreement
relating to the extension of the 10% reduction of your annualized Base Salary and the corresponding adjustment to
your incentive compensation under the EICP as set forth in the Amendment to the Employment Agreement, dated
April 22, 2009 (the “Amendment”), between you and Newpark Resources, Inc.
(“Company”). Capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the same meanings ascribed to them in the
Amendment, the Employment Agreement, dated November 1, 2006, between you and the Company (the
“Employment Agreement”) and the Change in Control Agreement, dated July 17, 2009, between you and
the Company (the “Change in Control Agreement”). The terms of our agreement with regard to the
extension are as follows:


1. The 10% reduction to your annualized Base
Salary as set forth in the Amendment will continue in effect through March 31, 2010.


2. Beginning April 1, 2010, your annualized
Base Salary will be Two Hundred Ten Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($210,000.00).


3. Your Base Salary for purposes of calculating
payments under the EICP will likewise be adjusted through March 31, 2010 to reflect this 10% reduction in your
annualized Base Salary.


4. If your employment is terminated prior to
March 31, 2010 pursuant to Section 2.3 of the Employment Agreement, your “lump sum payment”
will be calculated based upon your $210,000.00 annualized Base Salary and not on your “current annual Base
Salary” of $189,000.00.


5. If your employment is terminated prior to
March 31, 2010 pursuant to Section 2.2 of the Change in Control Agreement as a result of a Change in
Control (as defined therein) or a Potential Change in Control (as defined therein), your Termination Benefit will
be calculated based upon your $210,000.00 annualized Base Salary and not on your base salary at the time of
termination of $189,000.00.





1









 





6. This 10% reduction in your annualized Base
Salary and the corresponding adjustment to your incentive compensation under the EICP do not constitute
“Good Reason” for termination by you, as defined in Section 2.3 and 3.10(b) of the Employment
Agreement, or a termination by the Company. Except for the foregoing modifications, the Amendment and the
Employment Agreement will remain in full force and effect in accordance with its terms.


Sincerely,


Newpark Resources, Inc.


By:
/s/ Paul L. Howes                                           

Name:
Paul L. Howes

Title: President and Chief Executive Officer




Agreed to and Accepted
this 1st day of
December, 2009.


/s/ Samuel Cooper                                               


Samuel Cooper



-2-





2
[No. 9510.

*En Banc.*

July 27, 1912.]

#### W. H. Fluhart, *Respondent,*v. Seattle Electric Company, *Appellant.**2*

Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for King county, Tallman, J., entered October 24, 1910, upon the verdict of a jury rendered in favor of the plaintiff, in an action for personal injuries sustained by a pedestrian struck by a street car.

Reversed.

*James B. Howe*and *A. J. Eallcnor,*for appellant.

*Douglas, Lane & Douglas,*for respondent.

2

 Reported in 124 Pac. 1127.

On Rehearing.

Per Curiam.

On respondent’s petition a rehearing *en banc*has been granted in this action. After such rehearing, the majority of this court conclude that the opinion heretofore filed herein, 65 Wash. 291, 118 Pac. 51,. should be sustained.

It is therefore ordered that the judgment of the' superior court be reversed, and that the cause be remanded with instructions to dismiss.
# C_2019187EN.01008701.xml

| 3.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 187/87 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.6.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 187/87

---

Action brought on 12 April 2019 — Karpeta-Kovalyova v Commission

(Case T-249/19)

(2019/C 187/94)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Marina Karpeta-Kovalyova (Woluwe Saint Pierre, Belgium) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul both challenged decisions so that the European Commission reevaluates the applicant’s status and grant her the expatriation allowance, the daily subsistence allowance, the installation allowance, the travel costs on taking up duty and the removal expenses; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul both challenged decisions so that the European Commission reevaluates the applicant’s status and grant her the expatriation allowance, the daily subsistence allowance, the installation allowance, the travel costs on taking up duty and the removal expenses;

| — | order the defendant to bear its costs as well as the applicant’s costs for the current proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to bear its costs as well as the applicant’s costs for the current proceedings.

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 a false interpretation of article 4(1) (a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulation concerning the definition of the habitual residence, given that the contested decisions disregard the diplomatic status of the applicant’s spouse covering the most of the critical period of 5 years ending six months before she entered the service and because they took into account interim contracts the applicant has had, while her family returned back to their home country. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a false interpretation of article 4(1) (a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulation concerning the definition of the habitual residence, given that the contested decisions disregard the diplomatic status of the applicant’s spouse covering the most of the critical period of 5 years ending six months before she entered the service and because they took into account interim contracts the applicant has had, while her family returned back to their home country.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment by the contested decisions since they don’t take into account facts that undeniably and beyond any assessment prove the removal of the entire household from Brussels back to the home country of the applicant, namely on the basis of the unsubstantiated assumptions. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment by the contested decisions since they don’t take into account facts that undeniably and beyond any assessment prove the removal of the entire household from Brussels back to the home country of the applicant, namely on the basis of the unsubstantiated assumptions.

---
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
333-91808 of Inveresk Research Group,Inc. on Form S-8 of our report dated
February 17, 2003 (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes
an explanatory paragraph relating to the adoption of Statements of Financial
Accounting Standards No. 142, "Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets" effective
January 1, 2002), appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Inveresk
Research Group, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2002.


Yours Truly



/s/ Deloitte & Touche
Edinburgh, Scotland
February 17, 2003
Case 10-01345 Doc 6 Filed 01/15/10 Entered 01/15/10 09:30:58 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 2
Case 10-01345 Doc 6 Filed 01/15/10 Entered 01/15/10 09:30:58 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly
Report of Vascular Solutions, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period
ended March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Howard Root, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

| |                                                |  |                   |  | 
| | ---------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------- |  | 
| |                                                |  | /s/   Howard Root | 
| |                                               
| | Howard RootChief Executive OfficerMay 10, 2004 | 

---
<PAGE>
                                                                    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 Quarterly Report of Valley National Gases
Incorporate (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2002
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Robert D. Scherich, 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, 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; and

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



                                    /s/ Robert D. Scherich
                                    ------------------------------------------
                                    Robert D. Scherich
                                    Chief Financial Officer
                                    November 14, 2002
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Elvin Howe, Appellant.

— Judgment affirmed *(see, People v Runion,*107 AD2d 1080). Callahan, J. P., Doerr, O’Donnell and Pine, JJ., concur.

Green, J.,

concurs in the following memorandum: I concur in the result only. I write separately to clarify my view that the mere announcement of readiness for trial by a prosecutor *991does not satisfy the People’s obligation under CPL 30.30. It is not enough for the People to simply state on the record their readiness for trial; they must also be able to substantiate such an assertion *(see, People v Dean,*45 NY2d 651, 656; *People v Pardner, 90*AD2d 987). This is the only way a reviewing court may ascertain whether the prosecutor has "effectively” announced his readiness for trial *(People v Brothers,*50 NY2d 413, 417). When the prosecutor makes his statement of readiness, the People must "in fact” be ready to proceed *(People v Kendzia,*64 NY2d 331, 337). Although various circumstances occurring after the People announce their readiness for trial may not provide a basis for dismissal pursuant to CPL 30.30 *(People v Giordano,*56 NY2d 524, 525), the People, nevertheless, must be able to substantiate that they were in fact ready for trial at the time they made the announcement. "An assertion of readiness without substantiation, if allowed to excuse needless delay, could make a mockery of CPL 30.30”. *(People v Williams,*67 AD2d 1094, 1095.)

Where, as here, the People announce their readiness for trial at defendant’s arraignment before the prosecutor has had an opportunity to respond to defendant’s discovery demands, the possibility that the announcement is a sham is increased, particularly in view of the fact that by simply announcing their readiness at an early stage of the proceedings, the prosecution avoids having any delay in furnishing discovery charged to the People (CPL 30.30 [4] [a]; *People v Runion,*107 AD2d 1080). When the prosecutor announces he is ready for trial, he makes a commitment to the court and to the defendant that he is ready to present a prima facie case. The prosecutor must be held accountable for this commitment if the defendant’s right to a speedy trial is to have any force and effect. Since, in the instant case, it is not clear that the announcement of readiness was a sham, the judgment must be affirmed. Of course, this does not preclude a different result, in a different case, based upon different proof. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Houston, J.— criminal mischief, third degree.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Green, O’Donnell and Pine, JJ.
# C_2019213EN.01003801.xml

| 24.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.6.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/38

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 2 May 2019 — Jap Energéticas y Medioambientales v Commission

(Case T-145/19 R)

(Application for interim measures - Environment - Financial Instrument for the Environment (LIFE) - Project LIFE 11 ENV/ES/000593-H2AL RECYCLING - Recovery of sums paid - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency)

(2019/C 213/40)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Jap Energéticas y Medioambientales, SL (Valencia, Spain) (represented by: G. Alabau Zabal, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Estrada de Solà and S. Izquierdo Pérez, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking suspension of the operation of Commission Decision BUDG/DGA 1/C4/CB/3241812545 of 14 January 2019 regarding the recovery from the applicant of the sum of EUR 82 750.96 plus default interest.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---