alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 144 (Friday, July 30, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 41145]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-16266]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[License No. 05/05-0335]


Serra Capital (SBIC) III, L.P.; Conflicts of Interest Exemption

    Notice is hereby given that Serra Capital (SBIC) III, L.P., 2021 
South First Street, Suite 206, Champaign, IL 61821, a Federal Licensee 
under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended (``the 
Act''), in connection with the financing of a small business concern, 
has sought an exemption under Section 312 of the Act and Section 
107.730, Financings which Constitute Conflicts of Interest of the Small 
Business Administration (``SBA'') Rules and Regulations (13 CFR 
107.730). Serra Capital (SBIC) III, L.P. is seeking a written exemption 
from SBA for a proposed financing to ConsortiEX, Inc., 1000 N Water 
Street, Suite 950, Milwaukee, WI 53202.
    The financing is brought within the purview of Sec.  107.730(a) of 
the Regulations because ConsortiEX, Inc. is an Associate of Serra 
Capital (SBIC) III, L.P. because Associate Serra Capital III, L.P. owns 
a greater than ten percent interest in ConsortiEX, Inc., therefore this 
transaction is considered Financing which constitute conflicts of 
interest requiring SBA's prior written exemption.
    Notice is hereby given that any interested person may submit 
written comments on this transaction within fifteen days of the date of 
this publication to the Associate Administrator, Office of Investment 
and Innovation, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street SW 
Washington, DC 20416.

United States Small Business Administration.
Thomas G. Morris,
Acting Associate Administrator, Director, Office of Liquidation, Office 
of Investment and Innovation.
[FR Doc. 2021-16266 Filed 7-29-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         906,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  886,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  7,934,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            10,625,000
<PP&E>                                       1,987,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 693,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,069,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,048,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       10,886,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        49,000
<OTHER-SE>                                (15,593,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,069,000
<SALES>                                     11,100,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            11,100,000
<CGS>                                        8,603,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               18,075,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (171,000)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (15,749,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (15,749,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (15,749,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (3.32)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (3.32)



</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6778
WILBUR LEON MARTIN, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus CHESAPEAKE CITY JAIL; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Respondents - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-96-468-2) Submitted: December 2, 1997 Decided: April 20, 1998 Before HAMILTON, Circuit Judge, and HALL and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wilbur Leon Martin, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge andfind no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Martin v. Chesapeake City Jail , No. CA-96-468-2 (E.D. Va. May 27, 1997). Appellant's motion for production of a transcript atgovernment expense is denied. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<PAGE>
 
EXHIBIT 11.1

           HOME HEALTH CORPORATION OF AMERICA, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                COMPUTATION OF BASIC EARNINGS (LOSS) PER SHARE
         FOR EACH OF THE THREE YEARS IN THE PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1998

The following calculation is submitted in accordance with the Securities Act of
1934:

                                             1996    1996(1)   1997      1998
                                            ------   ------   ------   --------
                                                   (amounts in thousands, 
                                                   except per share data)

Net income (loss)                           $3,294   $2,133   $2,814   $(24,848)
Write-off of discount on preferred stock      (787)    (787)       -          -
Dividends on preferred stock                  (117)    (117)      (6)         -
                                            ------   ------   ------   --------
Net income (loss) available to common       
  stockholders                              $2,390   $1,229   $2,808   $(24,848)
                                            ======   ======   ======   ========
 
Weighted average number of common
  shares outstanding                         6,535    6,535    8,549      9,316
                                            ======   ======   ======   ========
Net income (loss) per share                 $ 0.37   $ 0.19   $ 0.33   $  (2.67)
                                            ======   ======   ======   ========
 
(1) Reflects net income and net income per share after extraordinary loss of
    $1,160 on early extinguishment of indebtedness.
(121 App. Div. 551.)

#### CONAWAY v. MARTIN.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 18, 1907.)

Negligence—Condition of Building- and Other Structures—Elevators— Actions—Questions tor Jury.

In an action for the death of plaintiff’s intestate, caused by striking his head on the top of the archway entrance to an elevator as the elevator went up, *held,*that under the evidence it was a question for the jury whether it was negligence not to have a door or gate in the elevator car itself, or on the inside of the archway entrance, to prevent persons in the car from striking against the top of the archway if they leaned over a little as the car went up.

Action for damages for negligence causing death.

The decedent was killed in the servants’ elevator of a large apartment house, seven stories high, owned by the defendant. He entered the elevator *195in the basement. The elevator shaft is of solid masonry from bottom to top. In the basement the entrance to the elevator is cut through the side of the shaft, which is 2 feet 6 inches thick. Such entrance is 3 feet 8 inches wide. At the outside of it, viz., the outside line of the wall, two doors open outward. The opening or arch is 8 feet 6 inches high. On the inside there was no door or gate to enclose those in the elevator from this entrance through the wall. As the elevator went up the top of the head of the deceased struck the arch, the top of the said entrance through the wall, and he was killed. It was quite dark in the elevator. The entrance doors being closed, the only light that came into the elevator was through a pane of glass 9 inches by 11 inches in the middle of each door. The elevator car was 4 feet 2 inches deep and 7 feet 3 inches wide.

*194Appeal from Trial Term, Kings County.

Action by Mary A. Conaway, as administratrix of Charles E. Conaway, deceased, against William R. H. Martin, to recover for the death of plaintiff’s intestate. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

*195Argued before JENKS, HOOKER, RICH, MILLER, and GAYNOR, JJ.

L. Sidney Carrere, for appellant

John C. Robinson, for respondent.

GAYNOR, J.

The motion to dismiss at the close was properly denied. Especially owing to the lack of light, it was a question of fact whether it was not negligent not to have a door or gate in the elevator car itself, or else on the inside of the opening or arch through the wall which was the entrance to the elevator car, to prevent persons in the car from inadvertently getting so close to the entrance side of the car as to strike against the top of the said opening or arch, if they happened to lean over a little as the car was going up.

The judgment should be affirmed.

Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs. All concur.
GARY A. LaPALME, C.P.A.


                          CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

                          MAPLE GROVE EXECUTIVE CENTRE

                          7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 110

                             Maple Grove, MN 55369

                             ---------------------

                                 (612)424-5330

                               FAX (612)424-2601


                                                                         MEMEBER

                                                   MINNESOTA SOCIETY OF C.P.A.'S

                                                  AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF C.P.A.'S


May 1, 2000



U.S. Securities and Exchange Commisssion
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20549



Gentlemen,

On May 1, 2000 this firm reviewed Item 9 - Changes in  Registrants's  Certifying
Public Accountant of the Form 10-KSB to be filed by North American Resorts, Inc.
(SEC File #0-26760) during May 2000.

We  have  no  disagreements  with  the  statements  made  within  Item  9 of the
referenced Form 10-KSB.

Sincerely,




/s/  Gary A. LaPalme
---------------------------
     Gary A. LaPalme, C.P.A
     Certified Public Accountants
**Exhibit 31.1**
I, Robert Giardina, Chief Executive Officer of Town Sports International, Inc.,certify that:
     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Town SportsInternational, Inc.;
     2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this quarterly report;
     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;
     4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as definedin Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(a) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and wehave:
     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report isbeing prepared; and
     (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end ofthe period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
     (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting;
     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent function):
     (a) All significant deficiencies and material weakness in the designor operation of internal controls which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and
     (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrols over financial reporting;     Date: August 16, 2004 By:  /s/ Robert Giardina     Robert Giardina
#### Farmers Reliance Company of New Jersey, Respondent, v National General Insurance Company, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

— In an action by an excess insurer to recover moneys paid on settlement of a personal injury action arising out of an automobile accident, defendant National General Insurance Co., the primary insurer, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Goldstein, J.), dated October 4, 1984, which, *inter alia,*granted plaintiff’s cross motion for leave to use the disclosure device of written interrogatories, and subsequently to take the depositions upon oral examination.

Order affirmed, with costs.

The claims set forth in the complaint do not fall within the ambit of the prohibition contained in CPLR 3130 (1) against a party seeking both interrogatories and to take depositions of other parties without leave of court. Thus, the order appealed from is unnecessary. It nevertheless may stand, since plaintiff has the right to both serve interrogatories on and take depositions from appellant. Lazer, J. P., Rubin, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Burnie E. Daniels, Appellant.

[944 NYS2d 712]

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Frank E Geraci, Jr., J.), rendered December 3, 2008. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal mischief in the third degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed. Fresent — Smith, J.E, Fahey, Peradotto and Lindley, JJ.
# C_2019295EN.01005701.xml

| 2.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/57

---

Action brought on 1 July 2019 — Caligaris v Parliament

(Case T-435/19)

(2019/C 295/74)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Luigi Caligaris (Rome, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation;

| — | order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount;

| — | order the European Parliament to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-389/19, Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament.

---
United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted June 14, 2018*

Decided June 20, 2018

Before

DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge

JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge

DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

No. 17‐3348

ROBERT EDWARD ORTH,

Petitioner‐Appellant,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL

REVENUE,

Respondent‐Appellee.

Appeal from the   

United States Tax Court.

No. 18049‐16

Ronald L. Buch,

Judge.

O R D E R

Robert Orth failed to file tax returns for two years because he believes the law

justifies his nonpayment. He petitioned the United States Tax Court for redetermination

of tax deficiencies and additions to tax assessed by the Commissioner of Internal

Revenue but elected to “reserve for appeal” his outlandish theories challenging the

legality of the tax code. His restraint was strategic; he knew that tax courts often impose

penalties on litigants who assert the frivolous tax‐protester arguments that Orth now

                                                 

* We agreed to decide this case without oral argument because the appeal is

frivolous. See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(A).

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 17‐3348    Page 2

presents for review. See 26 U.S.C. § 6673(a)(1)(B). In his response to a motion for

summary judgment, Orth referred to his own arguments as “off‐limits” and

acknowledged that he is “banned from mentioning” and “barred from arguing” them in

the Tax Court. The Tax Court entered summary judgment for the Commissioner,

finding that Orth had not contested the facts establishing the tax deficiencies.

Orth insists that he is not a tax protester. Regardless of his disclaimer, he has

filed an appeal rife with tax‐protester arguments that this court and others have

repeatedly deemed frivolous. He contends, for example, that United States citizens are

not subject to an income tax, that the Treasury regulations violate the Sixteenth

Amendment because only Congress can collect income taxes, and that wages are not

taxable income. See United States v. Stuart, 773 F.3d 849, 850–51 (7th Cir. 2014)

(identifying tax‐protester argument that wages are not income); United States v. Benson,

561 F.3d 718, 720 (7th Cir. 2009) (calling a tax‐protester argument challenging the

constitutionality of the Sixteenth Amendment “frivolous”); United States v. Cooper,

170 F.3d 691, 691 (7th Cir. 1999) (labeling same arguments “frivolous squared”). Orth’s

arguments raise no nonfrivolous challenge to the Commissioner’s assessment and do

not excuse deficiencies in his income taxes.

Because this appeal is frivolous, we AFFIRM the decision of the Tax Court and

direct Orth to show cause within 14 days why sanctions should not be imposed under

Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Szopa v. United States, 460 F.3d

884, 887 (7th Cir. 2006) (establishing that $4,000 is the presumptive sanction for a tax

appeal of this type).
# L_2013240EN.01S00301.xml

| 7.9.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 240/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 240/s3

---

NOTICE TO READERS

Council Regulation (EU) No 216/2013 of 7 March 2013 on the electronic publication of the Official Journal of the European Union

In accordance with Council Regulation (EU) No 216/2013 of 7 March 2013 on the electronic publication of the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ L 69, 13.3.2013, p. 1), as of 1 July 2013, only the electronic edition of the Official Journal shall be considered authentic and shall have legal effect.

Official Journal of the European Union

Where it is not possible to publish the electronic edition of the Official Journal due to unforeseen and exceptional circumstances, the printed edition shall be authentic and shall have legal effect in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in Article 3 of Regulation (EU) No 216/2013.

---
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 21, 2022

No. 04-22-00753-CV

IN RE JUNIPER VENTURES OF TEXAS, LLC

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

ORDER

Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice2

On November 7, 2022, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus. This court believes a

serious question concerning the mandamus relief sought requires further consideration. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 52.8(b). Respondent and real party in interest may file a response to the petition in this

court no later than December 6, 2022. Any such response must conform to Texas Rule of

Appellate Procedure 52.4. 

It is so ORDERED on November 21, 2022.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: _____________________________

Michael A. Cruz, 

Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2021CI17726, styled Josefa Jara Delgadillo vs. Juniper Ventures of 

Texas, LLC d/b/a Fischer's Neighborhood Market #21, pending in the 288th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, 

Texas, the Honorable Cynthia Marie Chapa presiding.

2

Justice Rodriguez did not participate in this order.
EXHIBIT 4.1







    	1 



    	 



    





    	2 



    	 



    





    	3 



    	 



    





    	4 



    	 



    





    	5 



    	 



    





    	6