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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         235,034
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               48,291,848
<ALLOWANCES>                               (3,483,891)
<INVENTORY>                                  2,228,671
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            49,846,425
<PP&E>                                      40,207,757
<DEPRECIATION>                            (11,441,466)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             185,976,884
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       52,623,802
<BONDS>                                    169,730,862
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        109
<COMMON>                                           164
<OTHER-SE>                                (38,133,556)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               185,976,884
<SALES>                                    119,335,358
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           119,335,358
<CGS>                                      116,210,337
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              116,210,337
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           9,736,767
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (6,611,746)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    96,242
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (6,707,988)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (6,707,988)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S FORM 10-K FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         402,083
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,684,137
<ALLOWANCES>                                   229,719
<INVENTORY>                                    673,338
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             9,709,211
<PP&E>                                       7,651,607
<DEPRECIATION>                             (2,601,949)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              20,318,247
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       31,006,092
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         9,982
<OTHER-SE>                                (13,247,999)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                20,318,247
<SALES>                                     68,589,101
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            68,589,101
<CGS>                                       92,503,417
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               92,503,417
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,698,026
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             195,728
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (25,808,070)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (25,808,070)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (25,808,070)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (2.85)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.85)
        

</TABLE>
#### Henry J. Nahal et al., Appellants, v C & S Building Materials, Inc., Respondent.

— Weiss, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term (Cobb, J.), entered October 11, 1984 in Rensselaer County, which granted defendant’s motion to vacate a default judgment entered against it.

In 1980, plaintiffs engaged a contractor to insulate their home with materials purchased from defendant. When it was discovered that the material had a lesser "R” value than purportedly represented by defendant, plaintiffs commenced the instant action for breach of warranty and fraud by service upon the Secretary of State pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 306. It is undisputed that the summons and complaint *823were returned to the Secretary of State as undelivered, apparently due to defendant’s failure to maintain a current address on file. Plaintiffs ultimately obtained a default judgment against defendant in the amount of $13,460. Once notified, defendant promptly moved to vacate the default pursuant to either CPLR 317 and/or 5015. Special Term vacated the default but left the judgment intact as security pending a final disposition of the matter *(see, e.g., Rubin v Payne,*103 AD2d 946). Plaintiffs have appealed.

There should be an affirmance. Since defendant did not personally receive notice of the action in time to defend, the issue distills to whether a meritorious defense was presented *(see, Marquette Co. v Norcem, Inc.,*114 AD2d 738; *Epstein v Abalene Pest Control Serv.,*98 AD2d 832). In his supporting affidavit, defendant’s vice-president maintained that no contractual relationship , existed between the parties and, in any event, the alleged misrepresentations as to the quality of the insulation material were not made by any of defendant’s representatives. Despite plaintiffs’ assertions that the affidavit was merely conclusory and without evidentiary support, we conclude that it sufficiently establishes a potential meritorious defense *(see, R. M. R. Rest. v Bygaph Corp.,*113 AD2d 994). Plaintiffs failed to specify in either their complaint or supporting affidavits the details of the alleged misrepresentations. This being the case, defendant was left with no alternative but to dispute the allegations and properly did so by affidavit of a corporate officer *(see, Teichman v Gendelman,*87 AD2d 745; *cf. Whitbeck v Erin’s Isle,*109 AD2d 1032, 1033). The conflicting positions assumed by the parties may appropriately be addressed by the trier of fact. We do agree, as noted by Special Term, that lack of privity is not a viable defense to a fraud claim *(see, McKinney & Son v Lake Placid 1980 Olympic Games,*92 AD2d 991, 993, *mod on other grounds*61 NY2d 836). Based on the foregoing, we cannot say that Special Term abused its discretion in vacating the default judgment.

Order affirmed, without costs. Kane, J. P., Casey, Weiss, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 13.1

                    PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with this Annual Report of Nordic American Tanker Shipping
Limited. (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2006 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on or about the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, Herbjorn Hansson, 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:

     (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.

A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon
request.

Date:  June 29, 2007


                                                  /s/Herbjorn Hansson
                                                  -------------------------
                                                  Herbjorn Hansson
                                                  Chairman, Chief Executive
                                                  Officer and President



SK 01318 0002 786461
#### Orville MEAUX, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC., a Delaware corporation; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 09-17560.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 15, 2011.*

Filed July 6, 2011.

Paul J. Steiner, Esquire, Law Offices of Paul J. Steiner, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Lori Ann Bowman, Linda Goldman, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Los Angeles, CA, Antonio Ruiz, Weinberg Roger *&*Rosenfeld, Alameda, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Orville Meaux appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing his complaint against Northwest Airlines, Inc. as barred by the bankruptcy discharge injunction issued in Northwest’s bankruptcy proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Meaux does not challenge the district court’s order dismissing his complaint against Northwest, and thus has abandoned any challenge to the dismissal. *See Cook v. Sehriro,*538 F.3d 1000, 1014 n. 5 (9th Cir.2008) (issues not raised on appeal are deemed abandoned).

We do not consider Meaux’s contention that the district court should have treated his Railway Labor Act claim against Northwest as an amendment to the complaint in his 2004 action against Northwest, because Meaux did not raise the argument in the district court and consideration is not “‘necessary to prevent a miscarriage of justice or to preserve the integrity of the judicial process.’ ” *Alaska v. United States,*201 F.3d 1154, 1163-64 (9th Cir.2000) (citation omitted).

Meaux’s request for judicial notice is granted in part as to Exhibits 1, 2, and 5. The request is otherwise denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### In the Matter of Dioniso Somerville, Petitioner, v Brian Fischer, as Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.

[942 NYS2d 386]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Following a family reunion program visit, petitioner was brought to the auditorium by a correction officer to provide a urine sample for testing, at which time petitioner became disruptive and used profane language. The officer applied a body hold to petitioner to prevent an assault and a physical altercation ensued, which resulted in petitioner striking the officer and the officer forcing petitioner to the ground until petitioner eventually was placed in mechanical restraints. As a result of this incident, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with engaging in violent conduct and assaulting staff. Petitioner was found guilty of these charges following a tier III *1312disciplinary hearing, and the determination was affirmed upon administrative appeal. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. The misbehavior report, related documentation and hearing testimony provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt *(see Matter of Perez v Fischer,*69 AD3d 1279, 1279 [2010]; *Matter of Terrence v Fischer,*64 AD3d 1110, 1111 [2009]). Petitioner’s contrary testimony presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve *(see Matter of Peana v Fischer,*54 AD3d 1126, 1127 [2008]; *Matter of Dozier v Selsky,*54 AD3d 1074, 1075 [2008]), and his remaining contentions are either unpreserved for our review or lacking in merit.

Mercure, J.E, Rose, Malone Jr., McCarthy and Egan Jr., JJ, concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
EXHIBIT 32.2





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL 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 June 30, 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/A for the period ending  June 30, 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/A for the period ending June 30, 2010, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







|Date:  October 8, 2010 | Jasmine Gregory
Chief Financial Officer
|---------------------- | ---------------------------------------
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
|------------------- | ---------------------------------------
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 21.1



                        Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 333-62289) pertaining to the Sync Research, Inc. Amended and
Restated 1991 Stock Plan, and the Sync Research, Inc. Amended and Restated
1995 Directors' Stock Option Plan and related Prospectus and in the
Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-52947) pertaining to the Sync
Research, Inc. 1996 Non-Executive Stock Option Plan and related Prospectus in
the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-12315) pertaining to the 1994
Assumed TyLink Corporation Equity Incentive Plan and related Prospectus of
our report dated January 28, 2000, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements and schedule of Sync Research, Inc. included in the Annual Report
(Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1999.


                                       /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Orange County, California
March 21, 2000
III 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 247 

Recognizing the accomplishments and efforts of John I. Wilson, executive 

director of the National Education Association, for dedicating his career 

to education professionals and students, and honoring his retirement. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

AUGUST 1, 2011 

Mrs. HAGAN submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the accomplishments and efforts of John I. Wilson, executive director of the National Education Association, for dedicating his career to education professionals and students, and honoring his retirement. 

Whereas John I. Wilson is a native of Burlington, North 

Carolina; 

Whereas John I. Wilson began his career as an activist for 

the National Education Association while attending 

Western Carolina University as the president of the National Education Association student chapter; 

Whereas John I. Wilson taught special needs students as a 

middle school teacher; 

Whereas John I. Wilson served as the executive director of 

the North Carolina Association of Educators; 


tjames on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 247 IS 

Whereas John I. Wilson developed a new support system for 

teachers pursuing certification by the National Board for 

Professional Teaching Standards in North Carolina, and 

as a result, North Carolina has more National Board-certified teachers and candidates than any other State; 

Whereas John I. Wilson led a successful campaign that increased the average salary of teachers in North Carolina, 

as compared to other States, from 43rd to 23rd in the 

United States; 

Whereas, after serving on numerous boards throughout his 

career, John I. Wilson became the executive director of 

the National Education Association, the largest union in 

the United States, in 2000; 

Whereas John I. Wilson is an advocate of a minimum salary 

of $40,000 for every teacher and a living wage for education support professionals; 

Whereas John I. Wilson launched a National Education Association initiative to engage the best teachers in sharing 

ideas on staffing high-poverty, underachieving schools 

with the most accomplished teachers; and 

Whereas John I. Wilson was presented with the Educator 

500 President’s Award in 2006: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) commends John I. Wilson for his leadership 

3 and service to educators across North Carolina and 

4 the United States; 

5 (2) recognizes John I. Wilson as a successful 

6 leader who has served the United States by improv7 ing our education system; 


tjames on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
3 

•SRES 247 IS 

1 (3) commends John I. Wilson for his numerous 

2 accomplishments; 

3 (4) congratulates John I. Wilson on his retire4 ment; and 

5 (5) supports the continued effort of education 

6 leaders to aid and improve the education system of 

7 the United States. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
#### 390 Kings Highway, LLC, Appellant-Respondent, v Dinara Maylov, Respondent-Appellant.

[944 NYS2d 261]—

In an action to recover the proceeds of an escrow account, the *999plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Demarest, J.), dated October 5, 2009, as denied its motion for summary judgment on the complaint, and the defendant cross-appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of the same order as denied her cross motion, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

In the instant matter, the defendant-escrow agent’s liability is limited by section 2.05 (b) of the contract of sale, which provides, in pertinent part, “that Escrowee [defendant] shall not be liable to either [the buyer or the plaintiff seller] for any act or omission on its part unless taken or suffered in bad faith, in willful disregard of this contract or involving gross negligence.” The plaintiff alleges, in its complaint, only that the defendant breached that section of the contract. However, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the defendant acted in bad faith, in willful disregard of the contract, or with gross negligence by failing to remit the down payment funds to the plaintiff seller as liquidated damages pursuant to section 13.04 of the contract. Thus, the plaintiff failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law *(see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr.,*64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]; *US Home Corp. v Elm Farm Assoc., LLC,*71 AD3d 667, 669 [2010]). The defendant also failed to demonstrate her entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint *(see Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]).

The parties’ remaining contentions are without merit.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the complaint and properly denied the defendant’s cross motion, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Dillon, J.E, Eng, Belen and Sgroi, JJ., concur.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. DAVID SCHNEIDER AND JOHN T. SOJA, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

Argued October 24, 1960

Decided November 21, 1960.

*452
      *Mr. William D.*Danberry, Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for plaintiff-respondent *(Mr. Edward J.*Dolan, Middlesex County Prosecutor, attorney).

*Mr. David I. Stepacoff*argued the cause for defendant-appellant David Schneider.

*Mr. Morris Spritzer*argued the cause for defendant-appellant John T. Soja.

Per Curiam.

Defendants were convicted of extortion. Fo appeal was pursued. About 31 months later a motion for a new trial was made on the ground of newly discovered evidence. Eollowing the denial thereof an appeal was taken to the Appellate Division where the order was affirmed in a short *per curiam*opinion. Rehearing was applied for and refused. Defendants then appealed to this court, alleging that the original conviction resulted from the use of perjured testimony by the State and therefore constituted a denial of due process.

Our examination of the record satisfies us that the alleged constitutional issue is without substance. Consequently, appeal does not lie as a matter of right under *B. B.*1:2-l(a). Fonetheless, we have studied the basic merits of the appeal and have reached the conclusion that the actions taken by the Appellate Division were correct.

The judgment is affirmed.

*For affirmance*— Chief Justice Weiftraub, and Justices Jacobs, Erafcis, Proctor, Hall and Schettifo — 6.

*For reversal*— Fone.
Exhibit 32.2

                           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  on Form  10-Q of  Synovics
Pharmaceuticals,  Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly  period ended April 30,
2007 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Ronald
Howard Lane, Principal 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:

(3)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
         Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(4)      The  information  contained  in  the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
         material respects,  the consolidated financial condition of the Company
         as of the dates presented and consolidated results of operations of the
         Company for the periods presented.

Dated: June 18, 2007


By: /s/ Ronald H. Lane
    --------------------------------
    Ronald Howard Lane
    Principal Financial Officer




This  certification  has been  furnished  solely  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided  to  Synovics  Pharmaceuticals,  Inc.  and will be retained by Synovics
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.