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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated balance sheet and the consolidated statement of operations and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to said statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   Dec-31-1998
<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  4,169,445
<ALLOWANCES>                                   161,292
<INVENTORY>                                    1,627,876
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               5,855,460
<PP&E>                                         5,594,131
<DEPRECIATION>                                 404,753
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 15,820,169
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          8,960,324
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       948
<OTHER-SE>                                     2,029,100
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   15,820,169
<SALES>                                        31,011,197
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               31,011,197
<CGS>                                          23,624,475
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  9,054,720
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               241,855
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             670,128
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,579,981)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,579,981)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (139,483)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,719,464)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (4.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (4.04)
        


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 31.2CERTIFICATIONI, Robert L. Miller, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-QSB of CVF Technologies Corporation;  2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement ofa material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)for the registrant and have: a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;  b. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c. disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fiscalfourth quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): a. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of whichare reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarizeand report financial information; and  b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: November 14, 2006       /s/ Robert L. Miller     Robert L. Miller,    Chief Financial Officer
```

[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 150 (Monday, August 9, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43538-43539]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-16916]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER21-2570-000]

TC Energy Marketing Inc.; Supplemental Notice That Initial 
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of 
TC Energy Marketing Inc.'s application for market-based rate authority, 
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes 
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future 
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, 
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone 
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that 
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability, is August 23, 2021.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to 
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, 
Washington, DC

[[Page 43539]]

20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed proceedings should be 
delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, 
Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the 
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an 
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the 
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using 
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three 
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time, 
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public 
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency 
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the 
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free, 
(886) 208-3676 or TYY, (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: August 3, 2021.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2021-16916 Filed 8-6-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
```
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.



# United States **Court of Appeals** 
**for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

ARCH DEVELOPMENT COR PORATION, DANA

FARBER CANCER INSTIT UTE, INC., Appellants

v.

OSI PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC, GENENTECH, INC., Appellees

UNITED STATES,

Intervenor

______________________

2018

- 1485

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2016

- 01034.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

P ETER A. S ULLIVAN

, Foley Hoag LLP , New York, NY, argued for appellants. Also represented by S TEPHEN
K ENNY ; D E A NN F ORAN S MITH , Boston, MA.

B RIAN R OBERT M ATSUI

, Morrison & Foerster LLP,Washington, DC, argued for all appellees. Appellee Genentech, Inc. also represented by S ETH W. L LOYD ; M ATTHEW A

. C HIVVIS

, M ATTHEW I AN K REEGER , San Francisco, CA.

T HOMAS S AUNDERS , Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale andDorr LLP, Washington, DC, for appellee OSI Pharmaceuticals, LLC. Also represented by D AVID L ANGDON C AVANAUGH

, A MANDA L. M AJOR

, H EATHER M. P ETRUZZI

, A MY K. W IGMORE ; T IMOTHY A NDREW C OOK

, E MILY R.

W HELAN , Boston, MA.

K

ATHERINE T WOMEY A LLEN

, Appellate Staff, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for intervenor. Also represented by M ARK R.

F REEMAN

, S COTT R. M C I NTOSH

, J OSEPH H. H UNT ; T HOMAS
W. K RAUSE

, J OSEPH M ATAL

, F ARHEENA Y ASM EEN R ASHEED

,Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA.

______________________

T HIS C AUSE ha ving been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (P ROST

, Chief Judge, L OURIE and

B RYSON

, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed . Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

May 9, 2019 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Date Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO****18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350,****ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO****SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of U.S. Restaurant Properties,Inc., (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,Stacy M. Riffe, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements ofsection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15U.S.C. 78m or78o(d)); and

 

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

 

 
| /s/ Stacy M. Riffe      |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
|                    |
| Stacy M. Riffe          |
| Chief Financial Officer |
| August 14, 2003         |

 

----
# L_2005080EN.01S00201.xml

| 29.3.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 80/s2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 80/s2

---

All amounts in this budget document are expressed in euro unless otherwise indicated.

Any revenue provided for in Article 18(1) of the Financial Regulation, entered in Titles 5 and 6 of the statement of revenue, may lead to additional appropriations being entered on the headings which bore the initial expenditure giving rise to the corresponding revenue.

References in the remarks to the Staff Regulations of officials and to the Conditions of employment of other servants of the European Communities are those pertinent to the previous Regulations and Conditions, which were amended by Council Regulation [EC, EURATOM] No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004 (OJ L 124, 27.4.2004). All such references should be considered as referring to the relevant provisions in this latter Regulation.

---
(25 Civ. Proc. R. 143; 15 Misc. Rep. 25.)

#### GILBERT v. McKENNA et al.

(Superior Court of New York City,

General Term.

December 18, 1895.)

Pleading—When Cause at Issue—Reply.

Where defendants, or some of them, answer, setting up new matter, the cause is at issue without a reply, in the absence of an order requiring a reply to the new matter.

Appeal from special term.

Action by Lillie H. Gilbert against Cecelia McKenna and others to foreclose a mortgage. From an order denying a motion to strike the cause from the calendar, defendants Dempsey and Smith appeal.

Affirmed.

Argued before FREEDMAN and McADAM, JJ.

Blandy, Mooney & Shipman, for appellants.

James Kearney, for respondent.

McADAM, J.

The action is to foreclose a mortgage on real property. The appellants were made parties defendant, on the ground that they had, or claimed to have, some interest in or lien upon the mortgaged premises subordinate to that held by plaintiff. They joined issue by an answer setting up an agreement made with the owner of the fee for a mortgage which was to be prior to the one sought to be foreclosed. When the action was called for trial, the appellants moved to strike the cause from the calendar because of the failure of the plaintiff to serve a reply to the new matter pleaded by them. This was on the erroneous theory that the cause was not at issue. The motion was denied, and from the order entered on such denial the present appeal is taken. The appellants have misconceived the practice. No order had been made requiring a reply to the new matter, and it was optional with the plaintiff to serve one. If without an order a reply was proper, the only effect of a failure to make it was to render unnecessary proof of the facts which should have been met by reply. Code, § 522; Bliss, Code Pl. § 396; Randolph v. Mayor, etc., 53 How. Prac. 68; 2 Wait, Prac. 443, 444. The failure does not prevent a plaintiff from bringing the cause to trial, and the effect of the omission is properly determinable thereat. Adams v. Roberts, 1 Civ. Proc. R. 204, 62 How. Prac. 253.

. Irrespective of the question whether the answer contains a counterclaim requiring a reply, the refusal to strike the cause from the calendar was proper, and the order entered upon such refusal must be affirmed, with costs.
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Crop Genetics Research: Stoneville, MS
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Southeast Area Stoneville, Mississippi Crop Genetics Research People & Locations







Robert Mathew Kersh
                        Crop Genetics Research

                        




                        
                        Biological Science Technician
                        Phone: (662) 686-5400
                        
                        
                        Fax: (662) 686-5218(Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
#### Royalty Network, Inc., Appellant, v Carl Harris, Doing Business as Phat Groov Music, Respondent.

[947 NYS2d 53]—

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Bernard J. Fried, J.), entered December 22, 2011, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The court properly determined that New York does not have jurisdiction over defendant, a Georgia resident. Plaintiff, a New York music publishing corporation, did not make a sufficient showing of conduct by which the nondomiciliary defendant purposefully availed himself of the privilege of transacting business so as to invoke the benefits and protections of New York’s laws (CPLR 302 [a] [1]). The consulting agreement between the parties, the various communications plaintiff relies upon which concern the songwriters that defendant referred to plaintiff for administration and co-publishing agreements in New York, are not, under the circumstances herein, adequate transactional predicates for an assertion of jurisdiction *(see Warck-Meister v Diana Lowenstein Fine Arts,*7 AD3d 351, 352 [2004]). Rather, all of the New York activities relating to the consulting agree*776ment, including publishing, administering and exploiting the songwriter’s compositions in New York’s media outlets, were performed by plaintiff and cannot be attributed to defendant *(see e.g. J. E. T. Adv. Assoc. v Lawn King,*84 AD2d 744, 744-745 [1981], *appeal dismissed*56 NY2d 648 [1982]). Similarly, the executive producer agreement between the parties which required defendant to produce, market, promote, and distribute an album and two music videos, was not sufficient to establish that defendant “contract[ed] anywhere to supply goods or services in the state” (CPLR 302 [a] [1]). Indeed, the agreement contains no geographic qualifications at all. Although defendant was required to send a completed album to plaintiff in New York, nothing shows that he intended to take advantage of New York’s unique resources in the entertainment industry *(cf. Courtroom Tel. Network v Focus Media,*264 AD2d 351 [1999]). Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., Catterson, DeGrasse, Richter and ManzanetDaniels, JJ.
# C_2019016EN.01005701.xml

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/57

---

Action brought on 12 November 2018 — Soundio v EUIPO — E-Plus Mobilfunk (Vibble)

(Case T-665/18)

(2019/C 16/68)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Soundio A/S (Drammen, Norway) (represented by: N. Köster and J. Albers, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: E-Plus Mobilfunk GmbH (Düsseldorf, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the mark Vibble — International registration designating the European Union No 1 290 194

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 September 2018 in Case R 721/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                           5

<S>                                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                          12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                 DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                    JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                      DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                                  69037
<SECURITIES>                                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                                           87290
<ALLOWANCES>                                                0
<INVENTORY>                                             82974
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                       755114
<PP&E>                                               16653021
<DEPRECIATION>                                        (921770)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       17795451
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 3602211
<BONDS>                                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                       0
<PREFERRED>                                                 0
<COMMON>                                                 5975
<OTHER-SE>                                            3327703
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         17795451
<SALES>                                               7835951
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      7889203
<CGS>                                                 7394515
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                               0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       858428
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     614526
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       (978266)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   (775000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        305000
<CHANGES>                                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                         (1448266)
<EPS-BASIC>                                             (0.31)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           (0.25)


</TABLE>
#### Nicholas Rizzo, Appellant, v State of New York, Respondent.

(Claim No. 65168.)

In an egligence claim to recover damages for personal injuries, claimant appeals from a judgment of the Court of Claims (Lengyel, J.), dated April 16, 1984, which, after a nonjury trial on the issue of liability only, granted the State’s motion to dismiss the claim.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

The claimant was injured on June, 12, 1979, at approximately 7:40 p.m., when the motorcycle he was operating left the roadway, traveled on the shoulder for some distance, and struck a sign post and telephone pole. As a result of this mishap, claimant was thrown from the motorcycle and struck a rock.

At trial, claimant made no allegation that the State was in any way negligent with respect to his leaving the traveled portion of the road. Rather, claimant contended that the State was negligent in its maintenance of the shoulder of the roadway, and that defects in the shoulder prevented him from directing the motorcycle and returning to the roadway.

On this record we cannot say that the trial court’s determinations relative to claimant’s various theories were incorrect or that the evidence was such that we should reverse the judgment and attempt to fix comparative fault. Lazer, J. P., Rubin, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.