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

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FORM 10-QSB FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDING MARCH 31, 1997 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH 10-QSB
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           2,677
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 3,773
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     22,819
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          11,335
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            11,324
<LOANS>                                         82,067
<ALLOWANCE>                                        688
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 126,292
<DEPOSITS>                                     112,242
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              1,202
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           479
<OTHER-SE>                                      12,369
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 126,292
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  1,871
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  552
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    30
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 2,453
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               1,188
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,188
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            1,265
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       60
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   4
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                    706
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    611
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         611
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       442
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.84
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.84
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.48
<LOANS-NON>                                         80
<LOANS-PAST>                                       549
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   674
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       84
<RECOVERIES>                                        38
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  688
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               688
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            378
        

</TABLE>
Case: 1:02-cv-07266 Document #: 149 Filed: 09/14/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:1265
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 21


                   Subsidiaries of Quintel Entertainment, Inc.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                       State of Incorporation
   Subsidiary                                             or Organization

<S>                                                             <C>
1. Calling Card Company, Inc.                                   New York

2. New Lauderdale L.C.                                          Florida

3. N.L. Corp.                                                   Delaware

4. Creative Direct Marketing, Inc.                              Delaware

5. Quintel Hair Products, Inc.                                  Delaware

6. Quintel Products, Inc.                                       Delaware

7. Quintelco., Inc.                                             Delaware

8. Quintel Psychic Zone, Inc.                                   Delaware

9. Quintel LaBuick Products, LLC                                Delaware

10. Quintel Cellular, LLC                                       Delaware
</TABLE>
Case: 1:02-cv-08399 Document #: 12 Filed: 01/25/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:27
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John J. Lewis, Appellant.

Levine, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County (Stroebel, Jr., J.), rendered June 7, 1982, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of burglary in the first degree and assault in the first degree.

On the evening of March 7, 1982, defendant and a codefendant forcibly broke into a woman’s apartment and allegedly raped and sodomized her, burglarized her apartment, threatened her with a gun, and stabbed her 13 times when she attempted to flee. Shortly thereafter, the codefendant was apprehended in the neighborhood of the victim’s apartment with her property in his possession. He gave a statement implicating himself and defendant. Defendant was apprehended pursuant to a warrant search of his mother’s house and gave a statement to the police.

*779Defendant was indicted on April 16, 1982 and charged with the crimes of attempted murder in the first degree, sodomy in the first degree, three counts of assault in the first degree, three counts of robbery in the first degree, three counts of burglary in the first degree, and unlawful imprisonment in the first degree. Subsequently, after plea negotiations, defendant pleaded guilty on May 17, 1982 to one count of burglary in the first degree and one count of assault in the first degree, and was sentenced to agreed-upon concurrent terms of 4 to 12 and 3 to 9 years in prison.

On appeal, defendant contends that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because no pretrial motions were made in his behalf, including a motion to suppress the statement defendant gave to the police. We disagree, at the time defendant entered his plea, the time for making motions had not run out. A tactical decision to forego making those motions when an advantageous plea bargain has been struck may not be attacked on appeal and labeled ineffective assistance of counsel *(People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137, 147). There was overwhelming evidence implicating defendant in the attack upon the victim, including the victim’s statement, the codefendant’s statement and defendant’s statement. Defendant, charged in a 12-count indictment with serious and violent felonies, faced a potentially life-long period of incarceration, yet a bargain was struck whereby he would plead guilty to two crimes and receive two concurrent sentences with minimum terms of 3 and 4 years, respectively, in full satisfaction of the indictment. "[T]he evidence, the law, and the circumstances of [this case], viewed in totality and as of the time of the representation”, reveal that defendant’s attorney did in fact provide meaningful and adequate representation *(People v Baldi, supra,*p 147).

We are similarly unpersuaded by defendant’s contention that his sentence was harsh and excessive. Defendant agreed to the sentence he received as a part of his plea bargain. Since he has made no allegation that that plea was not voluntary or knowingly made, he is bound by the terms of his bargain *(People v Cates,*104 AD2d 895, 896).

Judgment affirmed. Mahoney, P. J., Main, Yesawich, Jr., Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur.
#### TOWN OF WEST NEW YORK, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. PEERLESS REALTY CO., INC., DEFENDANT, DOMINICK PARADISO, *ET AL.,*DEFENDANTS-PETITIONERS.

June 2, 1960.

*Messrs. Bubenstein é Glide*for the petitioners.

*Mr. Samuel L. Eirschberg*and *Mr. Joseph V. Oullum*for the respondent.

Denied.
#### Peter Malamas et al., Respondents, v Toys “R” Us-Delaware, Inc., Appellant.

[942 NYS2d 840]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Niagara County (Catherine R. Nugent Panepinto, J.), entered November 1, 2011 in a personal injury action. The order denied the motion of defendant for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed with costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this action seeking damages for injuries allegedly sustained by Peter Malamas (plaintiff) when he was struck in the back of the head by a box containing a swing set at defendant’s store. We conclude that Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. “It is well established . . . that [a] moving party must affirmatively [demonstrate] the merits of its cause of action or defense and does not meet its burden by noting gaps in its opponent’s proof’ *(Atkins v United Ref. Holdings, Inc.,*71 AD3d 1459, 1459-1460 [2010] [internal quotation marks omitted]; *see DiBartolomeo v St. Peter’s Hosp. of the City of Albany,*73 AD3d 1326, 1327 [2010]). We conclude that “ ‘[defendant failed to meet its initial burden of establishing as a matter of law that ... its alleged negligence was not a *1439proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries’ ” (Atkins, 71 AD3d at 1460; *see Kanney v Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.,*245 AD2d 1034, 1036 [1997]). Inasmuch as defendant failed to meet its initial burden on the motion, the burden never shifted to plaintiffs to raise a triable issue of fact *(see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Present — Centra, J.P., Peradotto, Lindley, Sconiers and Martoche, JJ.
#### GIBBONS, Appellant, v. NEW YORK CENT. & H. R. R. CO., Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

November 20, 1907.)

Action by Ellen Gibbons, as administratrix, etc., against the New York Central >& Hudson River Railroad Company.

No opinion. . Judgment confirmed, with costs.
**Exhibit 21.1**

 

**Subsidiaries of Visual Networks, Inc.**

 

Visual Networks Operations, Inc. (DE) 

VisualNetworks Texas Operations, Inc. (DE) 

Visual Networks Ltd. (Bermuda) 

Net2Net, LLC (DE) 

Avesta Technologies, LLC (DE) 

Inverse Network Technology (CA) 

Visual Networks Investments, Inc. (CA) 

Visual Networks Technologies, Inc. (CA) 

Visual Networks, Italia Srl (Italy) 

Visual Networks International Operations, Inc. (DE) 

Avesta Technologies Pte.Ltd. (Singapore) 

Avesta Technologies Canada, Inc. (Canada) 

 

46
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 146 (Tuesday, August 3, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 41811]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-16491]


========================================================================
Notices
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules 
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings 
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, 
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency 
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents 
appearing in this section.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 146 / Tuesday, August 3, 2021 / 
Notices

[[Page 41811]]



AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT


Analysis of Service Contract Inventory for FY 2017-2019 and the 
Planned Analysis of the FY 2020 Inventory; Notice of Availability

AGENCY: United States Agency for International Development (USAID)

ACTION: Notice of public availability.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with Section 743 of Division C of the FY2010 
Consolidated Appropriations Act, the United States Agency for 
International Development (USAID) hereby advises the public of the 
availability of the FY 2017-2020 Service Contract Inventory found at 
https://www.acquisition.gov/service-contract-inventory. The inventory 
provides information on service contract actions over $25,000. The 
inventory has been developed in accordance with guidance issued by the 
Office of Management and Budget's Office of Federal Procurement Policy 
(OMB/OFPP). The USAID service contract inventory data is included in 
the government-wide inventory posted in the above link and the 
government-wide inventory can be filtered to display the inventory data 
for the Agency. USAID has also posted its FY 2017-2019 SCI Reports at: 
https://www.usaid.gov/results-and-data/budget-spending/official-service-contract-inventory. The FY 2019 Report includes the plan for 
analyzing the FY 2020 inventory.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions regarding the service 
contract inventory should be directed to Eileen Simoes, Chief, Policy 
Division, Bureau for Management Policy, Budget and Performance, U.S. 
Agency for International Development, (202) 921-5090, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0267716b6f6d6771427771636b662c656d74"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2247514b4f4d4751625751434b460c454d54">[email protected]</span></a>.

Susan C. Radford,
Management and Program Analyst, Bureau for Management Policy, Budget 
and Performance, U.S. Agency for International Development.
[FR Doc. 2021-16491 Filed 8-2-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6116-02-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### In the Matter of Jay M. Donchek, Appellant, v Robert J. McGuire, as Police Commissioner of the City of New York and as Executive Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Police Pension Fund, Article II, et al., Respondents.

Judg ment, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Stecher, J.), entered on October 18, 1984, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements, for the reasons stated by Martin Stecher, J. No opinion. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sandler, Fein and Asch, JJ.
**EXHIBIT 12.1**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Prof. Dr. Henning Kagermann, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of SAP AG;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The company’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the company and have:
 a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;  b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  c. Disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
5. The company’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the company’s auditors and theaudit committee of the company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction):
 a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the company’s internal control over financial reporting.
Date: March 22, 2005           /s/    HENNING KAGERMANN    ________________________________________
EXHIBIT 32.2





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 for the period ending March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jasmine Gregory, the 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 my knowledge:





1.   Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending  March 31, 2010, 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 for the period ending March 31, 2010, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







|Date:  May 11, 2010 | Jasmine Gregory
Chief Financial Officer
|------------------- | ---------------------------------------
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-2000
<CASH>                                           29731
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    71275
<ALLOWANCES>                                      1680
<INVENTORY>                                      91167
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                203709
<PP&E>                                           81510
<DEPRECIATION>                                   22424
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  283256
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            91991
<BONDS>                                         114340
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            50
<OTHER-SE>                                        8086
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    283256
<SALES>                                         372940
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                373426
<CGS>                                           322228
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   363006
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               10635
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   8057
<INCOME-TAX>                                      4691
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               3527
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      3527
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### Patrick Reid et al., Appellants, v I Grant Inc. et al., Respondents.

[942 NYS2d 470]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Wilma Guzman, J.), entered on or about October 18, 2010, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, denied plaintiff Patrick Reid’s motion seeking a judgment declaring defendants I Grant Inc., Ivorine Grant, Robert Johnson and Salmon Johnson in breach of a contract of sale of real property and that plaintiff was entitled to a return of his $10,000 down payment, held in escrow by defendant Stella Azie, Esq., and for a money judgment in the amount of $5,802, related to plaintiffs’ lease of commercial space on the premises, and granted defendants’ cross motion to dismiss Reid’s claims for breach of contract and for a money judgment, declared Reid in default under the contract of sale and directed that Reid’s down payment be transferred to defendant seller I Grant Inc. as liquidated damages in accordance with the parties’ contract of sale, unanimously modified, on the law, to deny the cross motion as to dismissal of Reid’s claim for breach of contract, and to vacate the declaration that Reid was in default of the contract of sale and the directed transfer of the down payment to defendant I Grant Inc., and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

*501Triable issues existed whether Reid’s lender declined to issue a mortgage commitment based upon requirements that neither party to the contract of sale had an obligation to rectify or cure *(see generally Rustum v*Pinto, 89 AD3d 574 [2011]; *Zellner v Tarnell,*65 AD3d 1335 [2009]). Reid’s lender allegedly would not extend a loan commitment to Reid after existing violations were noted on the premises in the lender’s lien search. While Reid did agree to terms in the contract of sale that relieved the seller from the boilerplate obligation of curing violations on the property, Reid did not, in turn, assume the obligation to remove the violations to the satisfaction of his proposed mortgage lender. To the extent Reid failed to annex to his motion a copy of his lender’s formal decision not to extend mortgage financing given the circumstances, and inasmuch as such letter was required to be delivered to the seller in accordance with Rider paragraph 2 to the contract of sale, Reid did not establish his right to a declaration that his down payment be returned to him.

The grant of defendants’ cross motion directing, inter alia, that I Grant Inc. recover Reid’s down payment as liquidated damages, was error inasmuch as I Grant Inc. did not offer evidence to show that its lender had approved a short sale to Reid. A party to a contract of sale that alleges damages directly flowing from a breach of such contract must show that he or she was ready, willing and able to meet his or her obligations under such contract, but for the other party’s breach *(see generally Pesa v Yoma Dev.*Group, *Inc.,*18 NY3d 527 [2012]; *Farahzad v Monometrics Corp.,*119 AD2d 721 [1986]). Defendants did not satisfy this burden. Concur — Andrias, J.P., Friedman, Acosta, Freedman and Richter, JJ.