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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                           13004
<SECURITIES>                                     15747
<RECEIVABLES>                                    46492
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 75610
<PP&E>                                          499743
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (4791)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  570562
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           246429
<BONDS>                                         200000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        844542
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    570562
<SALES>                                         205144
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                319371
<CGS>                                            64685
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   326149
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                162200
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (6778)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (6778)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (6778)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (.001)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (0)<F1>
<FN>
<F1>Result would be anti-dilutive due to loss
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,

whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 

You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Case 3:15-cv-01686-HZ Document 3 Filed 09/14/15 Page 1 of 2
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE

(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .

’ I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or

’ I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

’ I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

 designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)

on (date) ; or

’ I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

’ Other (specify):

.

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

Case 3:15-cv-01686-HZ Document 3 Filed 09/14/15 Page 2 of 2
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
 Agricultural Genetic Resources Preservation Research: Fort Collins, CO
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Plains Area Fort Collins, Colorado Center for Agricultural Resources Research Agricultural Genetic Resources Preservation Research Docs Clonal







Plant and Animal Genetic Resources Preservation Unit - Clonal Scientists Dr. Maria Jenderek - Plant Physiologist Virtual Tour Plant GRIN Database/Germplasm Requests Protocols Brochure


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
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
 Athens, Georgia
 close




            Search small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home People & Locations







Wilfredo  Olmedo

(Freddy)
                        Location Support Staff

                        




                        
                        Maintenance Mechanic
                        Phone: (706) 546-3515
                        
                        
                        Fax: (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
#### Veronica Ricci, Respondent, v Jason H. Lo et al., Appellants.

[942 NYS2d 644]—

*860In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Solomon, J.), dated March 10, 2011, which granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff, who was struck by a vehicle driven by the defendant Jason H. Lo (hereinafter the defendant driver) in the cross walk as she was crossing Flatbush Avenue in Brooklyn with the light in her favor, established, prima facie, that the defendants were liable for her injuries and that she was free from comparative fault *(see Lariviere v New York City Tr. Auth.,*82 AD3d 1165, 1166 [2011]; *Klee v Americas Best Bottling Co., Inc.,*60 AD3d 911 [2009]; *Hoey v City of New York,*28 AD3d 717 [2006]).

In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The defendant driver’s statement in his affidavit that the plaintiff ran in front of his vehicle in an apparent attempt to beat the oncoming traffic and cross Flatbush Avenue contradicted his admissions immediately following the accident, as reflected in a police accident report and an affidavit of a nonparty witness, to the effect that he did not see the plaintiff before he hit her with his vehicle. The defendant driver did not deny making the earlier admissions *(cf. Imamkhodjaev v Kartvelishvili,*44 AD3d 619, 620 [2007]), and we conclude that the affidavit was a belated attempt to avoid the consequences of his earlier admissions by raising a feigned issue of fact which was insufficient to defeat the motion *(see Rosenblatt v Venizelos,*49 AD3d 519, 520 [2008]; *Nieves v JHH Transp., LLC,*40 AD3d 1060 [2007]; *Abramov v Miral Corp.,*24 AD3d 397, 398 [2005]).

The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. Angiolillo, J.E, Belen, Lott and Miller, JJ., concur.
Case 6:15-cv-00260-AA Document 1-2 Filed 02/13/15 Page 1 of 15
Case 6:15-cv-00260-AA Document 1-2 Filed 02/13/15 Page 2 of 15
Case 6:15-cv-00260-AA Document 1-2 Filed 02/13/15 Page 3 of 15
Case 6:15-cv-00260-AA Document 1-2 Filed 02/13/15 Page 4 of 15
Case 6:15-cv-00260-AA Document 1-2 Filed 02/13/15 Page 5 of 15
Case 6:15-cv-00260-AA Document 1-2 Filed 02/13/15 Page 6 of 15
Case 6:15-cv-00260-AA Document 1-2 Filed 02/13/15 Page 7 of 15
Case 6:15-cv-00260-AA Document 1-2 Filed 02/13/15 Page 8 of 15
Case 6:15-cv-00260-AA Document 1-2 Filed 02/13/15 Page 9 of 15
Case 6:15-cv-00260-AA Document 1-2 Filed 02/13/15 Page 10 of 15
Case 6:15-cv-00260-AA Document 1-2 Filed 02/13/15 Page 11 of 15
Case 6:15-cv-00260-AA Document 1-2 Filed 02/13/15 Page 12 of 15
Case 6:15-cv-00260-AA Document 1-2 Filed 02/13/15 Page 13 of 15
Case 6:15-cv-00260-AA Document 1-2 Filed 02/13/15 Page 14 of 15
Case 6:15-cv-00260-AA Document 1-2 Filed 02/13/15 Page 15 of 15
Exhibit 31.2



Certification of Principal Financial
Officer

Pursuant to SEC Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a)



I, Paul Buck, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this Form 10-K/A of CNS Response, Inc.
for the year ended September 30, 2014;



2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances
under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included 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 periods presented in this report.



|Dated:   January 23, 2015 | /s/ Paul Buck                    
|------------------------- | ---------------------------------
|                          | Name:   Paul Buck                
|                          | Title:    Chief Financial Officer
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
 Madison, Wisconsin
 close




            Search small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home People & Locations







Joseph  Hodges
                        Location Support Staff

                        




                        
                        FIN & BUDG TECHN
                        Phone: (803) 713-5170
                        
                        
                        Fax: (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
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

SEAN P. MITCHELL, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JOHN MYRICK, et al., 

Defendants. 

BECKERMAN, Magistrate Judge. 

Case No. 2: l 5-cv-01449-SB 

FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION 

Plaintiff, formerly an inmate at Two Rivers Conectional Institution, brings this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On September 29, 2015, this Court issued orders granting Plaintiff's application to proceed 

informa pauperis, and dismissing his complaint for failure to state a claim. ECF Nos. 4 & 5. On 

October 16 and 19, 2015, the U.S. Postal Service returned the orders as undeliverable because 

Plaintiff had been paroled. ECF Nos. 6 & 7. 

On December 10, 2015, this Court issued an order (ECF No. 8) requiring Plaintiff to submit 

a change of address, or to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for lack of 

1 - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

Case 2:15-cv-01449-SB Document 10 Filed 01/25/16 Page 1 of 2
prosecution. That court order was also returned as undeliverable by the U.S. Postal Service. See 

Returned Mail (ECF No. 9). 

Pursuant to Local Rule (LR) 83-10, a party not represented by counsel has a continuing 

responsibility to notify the clerk's office of any mailing address changes. When mail from the court 

is returned as undeliverable due to the lack of a current address, and the party's failure to notify the 

court ofa change of address continues for 60 days, the court may dismiss the action. LR 83-12. 

Plaintiff has failed to keep the comi apprised of his current address, and the failure has 

continued for more than 60 days. Accordingly, this Court recommends that the district judge dismiss 

this proceeding, without prejudice, for lack of prosecution. See LR 83-12. 

SCHEDULING ORDER 

The Findings and Recommendation will be referred to a district judge. Objections, if any, are 

due fourteen (14) days from service of the Findings and Recommendation. If no objections are filed, 

the Findings and Recommendation will go under advisement on that date. If objections are filed, then 

a response is due fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of the objections. When the 

response is due or filed, whichever date is earlier, the Findings and Recommendation will go under 

advisement. 

DATED this d~ay of January, 2016. 

2 - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

STACIE F. BECKERMAN 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:15-cv-01449-SB Document 10 Filed 01/25/16 Page 2 of 2
First Amendment to Technology Services Agreement, dated December 2, 2008



 Exhibit 10.4 
 [*] designates portions of this document that have been omitted pursuant to a request for confidential treatment filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission. 
 FIRST AMENDMENT TO TECHNOLOGY SERVICES AGREEMENT 
 This FIRST AMENDMENT (“First Amendment”) to the September 19th, 2007, Technology Services Agreement (the
“Agreement”) by and between Republic Bank & Trust Company (“Republic”), a Kentucky banking corporation, and Jackson Hewitt Technology Services LLC (“JHTSL”), a Delaware limited liability company, is effective
as of the 2nd day of December, 2008 (the “Effective Date”). 
 RECITALS 
 WHEREAS, Republic and JHTSL entered into the Agreement on September 19, 2007. 
 WHEREAS, Republic and JHTSL desire to Amend certain terms of the Agreement. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises, covenants and agreements set forth below and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Republic and JHTSL do hereby agree to
amend the Agreement as follows: 
 AMENDMENTS 
  

	1.	The definition of “Resource Rate” in Section 1.1 (g) (ii) shall be modified to read as follows: 

  

	 	(g)	[*] 

  

	2.	Section 1.5 (b) shall be modified to read as follows: 

  

	 	(b)	For the 2009 Tax Season, Republic shall pay to JHTSL [*]. 

  

	3.	Schedule A of the Agreement shall be nullified and replaced with Schedule A, attached hereto. 

  

	4.	The parties agree to negotiate in good faith to modify all necessary provisions under this Agreement for the 2010 Tax Season, no later than [*]. 

  

	5.	Republic and JHTSL enter into this First Amendment only for the purposes stated herein. Unless otherwise amended herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement remain
unchanged and in full force and effect. 

 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this First Amendment has been executed and delivered by a duly authorized
officer of each party as of the date set forth above. 
  

									
	 REPUBLIC BANK & TRUST COMPANY
  
	 		 	JACKSON HEWITT TECHNOLOGY SERVICES LLC
	By:	 	 /s/    William Nelson
	 		 	By:	 	 /s/    Daniel P. O’Brien

		 	William Nelson	 		 	Name:	 	Daniel P. O’Brien
		 	Managing Director	 		 	Title:	 	EVP & CFO








 Schedule A 
 (FEE TABLE) 
 [*]
#### NATHANIEL P. JOY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. FLORENCE PIPE FOUNDRY CO., DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

See same case below: 64 *N. J. Super.*13.

*Messrs.*Bimon, *Raines & Bunting*for the petitioner.

*Messrs. Pellettieri & Rabstein*for the respondent.

January 16, 1961.

Denied.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Leroy Howard, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (O’Dwyer, J.), rendered November 2, 1983, convicting him of rape in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We find unpersuasive the defendant’s contention that he was denied a fair trial as the result of several alleged instances of prosecutorial misconduct. While the prosecutor improperly asked the defendant on two occasions whether the People’s witnesses had been "lying” when they testified *(see, e.g., People v Sepulveda,*105 AD2d 854; *People v Walston,*99 AD2d 847), the trial court promptly sustained objections to both questions, and the defendant did not answer them. Under these circumstances, and in light of the fact that defense counsel did not move for a mistrial or request curative instructions, the defendant was not prejudiced by the remarks.

*409The defendant’s arguments with respect to the remaining instances of alleged misconduct have not been preserved for appellate review as a matter of law *(see, People v Nuccie,*57 NY2d 818; *People v Baldo,*107 AD2d 751), and review in the interest of justice is not warranted by the circumstances of this case. Mangano, J. P., Weinstein, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.
Page 2

I, Kal Toth, declare as follows:

1. As Vice President of Systems Engineering, and later Vice President of Total Quality, at 

CGI Group, a company of over two thousand employees that developed software based 

systems for defense, transportation and communication applications including a highly 

secure messaging system for Canada’s embassies abroad, I managed a team conducting 

independent verification and validation of this $50M project. 

2. As Director of Software Quality for Hughes Aircraft of Canada, I lead teams assuring the 

development of five air traffic control systems and the evolution of Hughes' software 

development process from a traditional model to a comprehensive iterative model.

3. I was also the director of two academic programs delivering software engineering and 

information technology courses to working professionals in Oregon and Western Canada.

4. I was asked to assess the reliability of the MaverickMonitor software, exploring the 

software development processes and work products used to create MaverickMonitor.

5. I was provided a copy of the MaverickMonitor source code. I was not been provided a copy 

of any documentation (theory of operation, requirements specification, user manual, 

architecture and design documents, test cases, test procedures, test data, test results etc.) 

associated with developing the code. I understand that the Plaintiff did not provide these 

artifacts to Defendant's counsel.

6. The only software documented in the code base was open source software "Monotorrent" 

and "SharpPcap" adapted by the MaverickMonitor developers.

7. I am familiar with the requirements for NIST forensic tool and software validation. I can 

confidently state that, in my expert opinion, or any expert's opinion, the MaverickMonitor

software does not meet these requirements ensuring the reliability of this software system 

used for forensic purposes.

8. In my over 30 years of software engineering practice in industry and academia, I have 

never seen such poorly documented software put into commercial use for an operational 

information technology system. 

9. There is no way that software of the quality deployed by MaverickMonitor would have 

been developed by CGI, or any company I have been associated with, due to the lack of 

documentation and poor quality of the source code. 

Case 3:15-cv-00907-AC Document 138-17 Filed 02/28/18 Page 2 of 3