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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-29-2000             FEB-28-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-01-1999             MAR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1999             MAY-31-1998
<CASH>                                              31                       2
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,369                   8,390
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,635                     505
<INVENTORY>                                     18,645                  13,941
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                32,036                  23,743
<PP&E>                                           7,579                   5,131
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,310                   1,487
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  37,552                  27,690
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,288                   8,177
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                            79                      79
<OTHER-SE>                                      26,538                  26,127
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    37,552                  27,690
<SALES>                                         17,101                  14,821
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                17,101                  14,821
<CGS>                                            9,984                   8,741
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,984                   8,741
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,160                   5,065
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (15)                      42
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,972                     973
<INCOME-TAX>                                       828                     419
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,144                     554
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,144                     554
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.17                    0.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.16                    0.08


</TABLE>
# United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

No. 13-1701 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee,

v. CAREY GONYER, Defendant, Appellant.

**ERRATA SHEET** The opinion of this Court issued on August 4, 2014 is corrected as follows: On page 27, line 15, replace "at the time of at least one" with "at the time at least one"
Exhibit 32


                            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 American Soil Technologies,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2005 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), we, Carl P. Ranno, Chief Executive Officer and President of the
Company, and Ken Lew, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, respectively
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of
          the Company.

/s/ Carl P. Ranno                                 /s/ Ken Lew,
-------------------------------------             ------------------------------
Carl P. Ranno,                                    Ken Lew,
Chief Executive Officer and President             Chief Financial Officer
May 20, 2005                                      May 20, 2005
II

Calendar No. 294

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1172

For the relief of Sylvester Flis.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 12, 1997

Mr. DURBIN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on the Judiciary

NOVEMBER 13, 1997

Reported by Mr. HATCH, without amendment

A BILL

For the relief of Sylvester Flis.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. GRANT OF NATURALIZATION TO SYLVESTER

4 FLIS.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi6 sion of law, Sylvester Flis shall be naturalized as a citizen

7 of the United States upon the filing of the appropriate

8 application and upon being administered the oath of re-
2

•S 1172 RS

1 nunciation and allegiance in an appropriate ceremony pur2 suant to section 337 of the Immigration and Nationality

3 Act.

4 (b) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF

5 FEES.—Subsection (a) shall apply only if the application

6 for naturalization is filed with appropriate fees within 1

7 year after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Calendar No. 294

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1172

A BILL

For the relief of Sylvester Flis.

NOVEMBER 13, 1997

Reported without amendment
#### In the Matter of Town of Islip, Respondent, v Alan Schneider et al., Appellants.

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Suffolk County Department of Civil Service (hereinafter the department), the appeals are (1) from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gerard, J.), dated March 7, 1984, which, *inter alia,*granted the application to the extent that it annulled the department’s certification of a civil service position and directed it to issue a new certification, and (2) as limited by the appellants’ brief, from so much of an order of the same court, entered September 14, 1984, as, upon reargument, adhered to the original determination.

Appeal from the judgment dismissed, without costs or disbursements. That judgment was superseded by the order.

Order reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, judgment vacated, and proceeding dismissed on the merits.

*739In June 1983, the Town of Islip (hereinafter the town) submitted a "New Position Duties Statement” to the department requesting the certification of a new civil service position entitled "Public Safety Officer”. The statement included a description of the duties and responsibilities of the position under which the town wished to employ individuals to patrol and protect town and public property and enforce specific town ordinances.

On June 30, 1983, the department certified the position submitted by the town as "Park Ranger I”, an existing civil service title.

Upon review, Special Term concluded that the variations between the duties of the "Park Ranger I” classification and the new position sought by the town existed "to such an extent as to emasculate the job description enunciated in the [town’s] New Position Duties Statement”.

However, upon oral argument of this appeal, the parties conceded that effective March 22, 1985, the job specification for the "Park Ranger I” classification was amended to provide under "Distinguishing Features of the Class” that "[w]hen this position is used in municipalities other than the County, facilities other than parks may be included in the watch assignments”. Based upon the now expanded scope of the "Park Ranger I” classification, the duties described in the town’s "New Position Duties Statement” are sufficiently similar in scope to those under the existing "Park Ranger I” classification, that certification of the new civil service position urged by the town is unwarranted. "As a general rule the law as it exists at the time a decision is rendered on appeal is controlling” *(Matter of Alscot Investing Corp. v Incorporated Vil. of Rockville Centre,*99 AD2d 754, *affd*64 NY2d 921). In light of these circumstances, Special Term’s order must be reversed and its judgment vacated. Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Gibbons and Weinstein, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1



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 Radiologix, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Stephen D. Linehan, President and 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, to the best of my knowledge that:



(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/    STEPHEN D. LINEHAN                               
|                                                        
|Stephen D. Linehan President and Chief Executive Officer



Dated: May 7, 2004





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Radiologix, Inc. and will be retained by Radiologix, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**Written StatementPursuant To18 U.S.C. Section 1350**

The undersigned,Paul E. Ross, the Chief Financial Officer of Meade Instruments Corp. (the “Company”),pursuant to 18 U.S.C. *§*1350, herebycertifies that:

(i)    the Form 10Qfor the quarterly period ended May 31, 2007 of the Company (the “Report)fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) and 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(ii)   the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.
| Date: July 16, 2007 |
|--------------------------|
| By:                      | /s/ PAUL E. ROSS |   |
|                     | Paul E. Ross |
| * *                 | *Senior Vice President—Finance and CFO* |

 

----
#### Pan American World Airways, Inc., Respondent, v Dennison Ticket Co., Printhouse Division, et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

—Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Francis Pécora, J.), entered July 5, 1985, which, among other things, denied the defendants-appellants’ motion for partial summary judgment limiting plaintiff’s recovery to $5,000, is affirmed, without costs.

The defendant company submitted a competitive bid to print airline tickets for the plaintiff. The purchase agreement included the following language:

> "You will be responsible for lost or stolen tickets and related forms (while in your facilities and until such time they are given to a common carrier or delivered to Pan Am facilities by your employees) for the value of the documents.

> "In addition, you will be responsible for lost or stolen tickets and related forms, while they are in your facilities up to a cumulative maximum of $5,000.00 per year for consequential loss to Pan Am through the fraudulent use or redemption of such tickets and related forms.

> "You will take sufficient precaution on all printed waste material or manufacturing materials (i.e., printing plates) to prevent fraudulent use.”

Subsequently, it was found that the tickets had been printed as part of a series run but because the carbons used in the ticket books were slightly defective, the entire series was rerun using identical numbers. The defective tickets were placed in the defendant’s vault to be destroyed. According to the codefendant, an officer of the company, a former employee "may have absconded with a quantity of these tickets.”

Some of these defective tickets did turn up and were confiscated from passengers, and this action was commenced to recover for the fraudulent use of the tickets.

Among other things, a cross motion was made by the *527defendants for partial summary judgment to limit the plaintiffs recovery to $5,000, pursuant to the language of the purchase agreement, *supra.*While we agree with Special Term that at this point such partial summary judgment for limitation should be denied, we do not adopt the reasoning.

The agreement itself is confusing. The limitation is for "consequential loss”. The general statement of responsibility is for "the value of the documents.” It is not clear how, in a situation such as this, there is a distinction between the value of the documents and the consequential loss. Further, the limitation could not apply if there was gross negligence. *(Gross v*Sweet, 49 NY2d 102, 106.)

After completion of disclosure proceedings, provided for by the court at Special Term, it may be possible to consider further the question of whether the limitation should apply. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Ross, Carro and Kassal, JJ.
Case: 1:02-cv-05893 Document #: 18 Filed: 10/18/02 Page 1 of 16 PageID #:97
Case: 1:02-cv-05893 Document #: 18 Filed: 10/18/02 Page 2 of 16 PageID #:98
Case: 1:02-cv-05893 Document #: 18 Filed: 10/18/02 Page 3 of 16 PageID #:99
Case: 1:02-cv-05893 Document #: 18 Filed: 10/18/02 Page 4 of 16 PageID #:100
Case: 1:02-cv-05893 Document #: 18 Filed: 10/18/02 Page 5 of 16 PageID #:101
Case: 1:02-cv-05893 Document #: 18 Filed: 10/18/02 Page 6 of 16 PageID #:102
Case: 1:02-cv-05893 Document #: 18 Filed: 10/18/02 Page 7 of 16 PageID #:103
Case: 1:02-cv-05893 Document #: 18 Filed: 10/18/02 Page 8 of 16 PageID #:104
Case: 1:02-cv-05893 Document #: 18 Filed: 10/18/02 Page 9 of 16 PageID #:105
Case: 1:02-cv-05893 Document #: 18 Filed: 10/18/02 Page 10 of 16 PageID #:106
Case: 1:02-cv-05893 Document #: 18 Filed: 10/18/02 Page 11 of 16 PageID #:107
Case: 1:02-cv-05893 Document #: 18 Filed: 10/18/02 Page 12 of 16 PageID #:108
Case: 1:02-cv-05893 Document #: 18 Filed: 10/18/02 Page 13 of 16 PageID #:109
Case: 1:02-cv-05893 Document #: 18 Filed: 10/18/02 Page 14 of 16 PageID #:110
Case: 1:02-cv-05893 Document #: 18 Filed: 10/18/02 Page 15 of 16 PageID #:111
Case: 1:02-cv-05893 Document #: 18 Filed: 10/18/02 Page 16 of 16 PageID #:112
# C_2021471EN.01004902.xml

| 22.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 471/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 471/49

---

Order of the General Court of 24 September 2021 — Pilatus Bank v ECB

(Case T-139/19) (1)

(Economic and monetary policy - Prudential supervision of credit institutions - Withdrawal of licence - Tasks conferred on the ECB - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

(2021/C 471/70)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Pilatus Bank plc (Ta’Xbiex, Malta) (represented by: O. Behrends, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: A. Karpf, E. Yoo and M. Puidokas, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the ECB’s decision of 21 December 2018 declaring to the applicant that it was no longer competent to ensure its direct prudential supervision and to take measures concerning it.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Pilatus Bank plc shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Central Bank (ECB). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Pilatus Bank plc shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Central Bank (ECB).

---

(1)  OJ C 139, 15.4.2019.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1202 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  2d Session
                                S. 1202

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  Providing relief for Sergio Lozano, Fauricio Lozano, and Ana Lozano.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENCE.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for purposes of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), Sergio Lozano, 
Fauricio Lozano, and Ana Lozano, shall be held and considered to have 
been lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence as 
of the date of the enactment of this Act upon payment of the required 
visa fees.

            Passed the Senate October 15 (legislative day, October 2), 
      1998.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
105th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 1202

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  Providing relief for Sergio Lozano, Fauricio Lozano, and Ana Lozano.
```
II

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 116

To restore the traditional day of observance of Memorial Day.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 21, 1997

Mr. INOUYE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To restore the traditional day of observance of Memorial

Day.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. RESTORATION OF TRADITIONAL DAY OF OB4 SERVANCE OF MEMORIAL DAY.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 6103(a) of title 5, United

6 States Code, is amended in the item relating to Memorial

7 Day by striking out ‘‘the last Monday in May.’’ and insert8 ing in lieu thereof ‘‘May 30.’’.

9 (b) DISPLAY OF FLAG.—Section 2(d) of the joint res10 olution entitled ‘‘An Act to codify and emphasize existing

11 rules and customs pertaining to the display and use of
2

•S 116 IS

1 the flag of the United States of America’’, approved June

2 22, 1942 (36 U.S.C. 174(d)), is amended by striking out

3 ‘‘the last Monday in May;’’ and inserting in lieu thereof

4 ‘‘May 30;’’.

5 (c) PROCLAMATION.—The President is authorized

6 and requested to issue a proclamation calling upon the

7 people of the United States to observe Memorial Day as

8 a day for prayer and ceremonies showing respect for

9 American veterans of wars and other military conflicts.

Æ
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Richard D. Greene, Appellant.

[944 NYS2d 898] —

Appeal by the *1358defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Lozito, J.), rendered December 1, 2010, convicting him of burglary in the third degree (three counts), upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that his application to withdraw his plea of guilty should have been granted because the County Court failed to fulfill its alleged promise to direct that any undischarged sentence run concurrently with the negotiated sentence imposed in this case, and that, as a result, his plea was not voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently made. The defendant’s contentions are without merit since he failed to establish that he was subject to a prior undischarged sentence of imprisonment which would run consecutively to the negotiated sentence imposed in this case *(see*Penal Law § 70.25 [2-a]; *People v Newbould,*83 AD3d 1570, 1571 [2011]). In any event, the record reveals that the County Court fulfilled its sentencing promise. Rivera, J.P., Eng, Chambers, Sgroi and Miller, JJ., concur.
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-23-00333-CR

IN RE MARQUISE DAVAR HODGE

Original Proceeding

From the 40th District Court

Ellis County, Texas

Trial Court No. 44392CR

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator's petition for writ of mandamus, filed on October 31, 2023, is denied. His 

motion for leave to file the petition is dismissed as moot.

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray, 

Justice Johnson, and 

Justice Smith 

Petition denied

Motion dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed November 9, 2023

Do not publish 

[OT06]
#### KRAHAM, Appellant, v. JENNINGS et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

November 13, 1907.)

Action by Malachi Kraham against Herbert T. Jennings and another.

No opinion. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Í
# C_2023024EN.01008401.xml

| 23.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/84 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/84

---

Order of the General Court of 24 November 2022 — Ultra Electronics Holdings and Others v Commission

(Case T-763/19) (1)

(2023/C 24/112)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 45, 10.2.2020.

---
EXHIBIT 23
                                                                      ----------


                          INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S CONSENT




We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-09385, 333-09409, 333-43481) of our report
detail dated May 6, 2004, relating to the consolidated financial statements of
Classic Bancshares, Inc. and subsidiaries as of March 31, 2004 and for the year
ended, which report appears in the registrant's annual report on Form 10- KSB.



/s/ Crowe Chizek and Company LLC


Louisville, Kentucky
June 29, 2004

















<PAGE>

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S CONSENT


We hereby consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-09385, 333-09409, and 333-43481) of our report dated June
5, 2003, relating to the consolidated financial statements of Classic
Bancshares, Inc. and subsidiaries as of March 31, 2003 and 2002 and for each of
the years in the two-year period ended March 31, 2003, which report appears in
the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Classic Bancshares, Inc. for the fiscal year
ended March 31, 2004.



/s/ Smith, Goolsby, Artis & Reams, P.S.C.


Ashland, Kentucky
June 23, 2004