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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          74,997
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,962,069
<ALLOWANCES>                                   393,119
<INVENTORY>                                  1,765,252
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,143,130
<PP&E>                                         986,132
<DEPRECIATION>                                 399,574
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,874,195
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,305,753
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  1,500,000
<COMMON>                                       236,189
<OTHER-SE>                                     102,036
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,874,195
<SALES>                                      1,846,697
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,846,697
<CGS>                                        1,145,391
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,145,391
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               393,119
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,059
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (162,493)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (162,493)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                230,711
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    68,218
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
PAGE 1 – [PROPOSED] ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

DAVID H. ANGELI, OSB No. 020244 

 david@angelilaw.com 

KRISTEN L. TRANETZKI, OSB. No. 115730 

 kristen@angelilaw.com 

Angeli Ungar Law Group LLC 

121 SW Morrison Street, Suite 400 

Portland, OR 97204 

Telephone: (503) 954-2232

Facsimile: (503) 227-0880

COURTNEY W. ANGELI, OSB No. 941765 

 courtney@baaslaw.com 

ROBIN BOWERFIND, OSB No. 035949 

robin@baaslaw.com 

Buchanan Angeli Altschul & Sullivan LLP 

321 SW 4th Avenue, Suite 600 

Portland, OR 97204 

Telephone: (503) 974-5015 

Facsimile: (971) 230-0337

Attorneys for Plaintiff John Doe

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

PORTLAND DIVISION 

JOHN DOE,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE REED INSTITUTE

(aka, Reed College) and JANE ROE,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:15-cv-00617-MO

[PROPOSED] ORDER OF DISMISSAL

IT IS SO ORDERED: 

Case 3:15-cv-00617-MO Document 82 Filed 06/06/16 Page 1 of 2
PAGE 2 – [PROPOSED] ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

Based upon the Stipulated Motion for Judgment of Dismissal with Prejudice, this action 

is dismissed with prejudice and without costs or fees to any party. 

DATED this ______day of June, 2016. 

 _________________________________ 

MICHAEL W. MOSMAN 

United States District Court 

 

Case 3:15-cv-00617-MO Document 82 Filed 06/06/16 Page 2 of 2
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Maximo Doe, Also Known as Max, Appellant.

[943 NYS2d 692]—

McCarthy, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Coccoma, J.), entered July 12, 2010 in Schenectady County, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of conspiracy in the second degree, conspiracy in the fourth degree, criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree (two counts), criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

As the result of an investigation into organized drug activity in Schenectady County, defendant was charged in an indictment with the crimes of conspiracy in the second degree, conspiracy in the fourth degree, criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree (two counts), criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.* Defendant pleaded guilty as charged and was sentenced, as a second felony drug offender, to an aggregate prison term of 14 years, plus five years of post-release supervision. Defendant appeals.

We affirm. Defendant’s contentions that his plea was not knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered and that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel are not preserved for our review, as the record before us indicates that he failed to move to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment of conviction *(see People v Campbell,*89 AD3d 1279, 1279 [2011]; *People v Gomez,*72 AD3d 1337, 1338 [2010]). Further, with regard to the plea, the narrow exception to the preservation rule is inapplicable here, inasmuch as defendant did not make any statements during the plea allocution that negated a material element of the crime or otherwise raised any doubt as to his guilt *(see People v Lopez,*71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]; *People v Gorrell,*63 AD3d 1381, 1381 [2009], *lv denied*13 NY3d 744 [2009]). As to defendant’s claim that the agreed-upon sentence was harsh and excessive, the record reveals no abuse of discretion or extraordinary circumstances warranting a reduction of the sentence *(see People v Warren,*87 AD3d 1185, 1186 [2011]).

*1450Lahtinen, J.E, Spain, Malone Jr. and Kavanagh, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

*

 The indictment named 23 other defendants and contained a total of 84 counts.
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
 Fargo, North Dakota
 close




            Search small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home People & Locations







Charles  Diggins
                        Location Support Staff

                        




                        
                        Administrative Assistant
                        Phone: (701) 239-1370
                        
                        
                        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
II

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1843

To suspend temporarily the duty on acetic acid, [(5-chloro-8-quinolinyl)oxy]-

1-methyhexyl ester.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 24, 1998

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

to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To suspend temporarily the duty on acetic acid, [(5-chloro8-quinolinyl)oxy]-1-methyhexyl ester.

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

3 SECTION 1. ACETIC ACID, [(5-CHLORO-8-QUINOLINYL)OXY]-

4 1-METHYHEXYL ESTER.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following

8 new heading:

‘‘ 9902.29.32 Acetic acid, [(5-chloro-8-quinolinyl)oxy]-1-methyhexyl

ester (CAS No. 99607–70–

2) (provided for in subheading 2933.90.82) .......... Free No change No change On or before

12/31/02 ’’.
2

•S 1843 IS

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

2 subsection (a) applies with respect to articles entered, or

3 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after

4 the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.

Æ
<PAGE>



                                                                    EXHIBIT 24.1

                        FORTIS BENEFITS INSURANCE COMPANY

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY


Know all men by these present, that the undersigned directors and officers of
Fortis Benefits Insurance Company, a Minnesota corporation, hereby constitute
and appoint Robert B. Pollock, Larry M. Cains, Katherine Greenzang and Douglas
R. Lowe, and each of them, the individual's true and lawful attorneys-in-fact
and agents, with full power of substitution and resubstitution, for the person
and in his or her name, place and stead, in any and all capacities, to sign the
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003, to be
filed by Fortis Benefits Insurance Company, required by the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934, or any amendment to such report, and all other documents
in connection therewith to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission,
granting to said attorneys-in-fact and agents, and each of them full power and
authority to do and perform each and every act and thing requisite and necessary
to be done in and about the premises, as fully to all intents and purposes as he
or she might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that
said attorneys-in-fact as agents or any of them, or the substitutes, may
lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

         Signature                          Title
         ---------                          -----

 /s/ J. Kerry Clayton               Chairman of the Board
-------------------------------
J. Kerry Clayton


 /s/ Robert B. Pollock              President and Chief Executive Officer
-------------------------------
Robert B. Pollock


 /s/ Alan W. Feagin                 Director
-------------------------------
Alan W. Feagin


 /s/ Michael J. Peninger            Director
-------------------------------
Michael J. Peninger


 /s/ Lesley G. Silvester            Director
-------------------------------
Lesley G. Silvester
#### BIRMINGHAM CAR & MFG. CO. v. COX.

(Decided November 26, 1913.)

Appeal from Birmingham City Court.

Heard before Hon. W. M. Walker.

Tillman, Bradley & Morrow, for appellant.

Gas-ton & Pettus, for appellee.

Per curiam.

Dismissed by agreement.
#### Buckingham Apartments, Ltd., et al., Respondents, v Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Appellant.

*775The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action *(see, Matter of Aho,*39 NY2d 241, 248). The issues raised on appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

The plaintiff, the Buckingham Apartments, Ltd. (hereinafter Buckingham), purchased a policy of insurance containing a "Directors and Officers Liability Endorsement” from the defendant, which provided for indemnification for a loss arising from a claim made against an officer or director of the corporation "acting in his [or her] capacity as such but only when such Director or Officer shall be entitled to indemnification pursuant to the law or the charter or by laws of the Company”.

Subsequently, Buckingham was sued in an action entitled *253 Garth Assoc. v Buckingham Apts.,*which sought, *inter alia,*to enjoin Buckingham and its "directors, officers, agents, members and employees” from taking certain actions. However, no directors or officers were named as defendants in the action. Buckingham submitted a claim to the defendant seeking indemnification under the policy, and the defendant disclaimed liability. Thereafter, the plaintiffs instituted the instant declaratory judgment action. Special Term concluded that the plaintiffs were entitled to coverage, that any ambiguity in the policy provisions must be construed against the defendant, and that the fact that the officers and directors were not named individually in the lawsuit was of no moment. We disagree.

The policy expressly limits recovery to those instances in which an officer or director is entitled to indemnification from the corporation, or where an officer or director is obligated to pay an amount based upon his legal liability for an actual or asserted wrongful act. At bar, there is no indication that officers or directors were entitled to indemnification or that they were obligated to pay any amount. Indeed, it would have been impossible to make such a showing in view of the fact *776that no directors or officers were named as defendants in the aforementioned action, and they therefore had no reason to defend themselves.

Inasmuch as there is no ambiguity in the policy regarding the coverage under the facts presented in this case, there is nothing to construe against the defendant insurer.

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions have been considered and found to be without merit. Mangano, J. P., Weinstein, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 31.2

I, Daniel L. Hefner, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of American Commerce Solutions, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

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

4. The registrants other certifying officers and I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and
have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the Evaluation Date); and

c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5. The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified
for the registrants auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal controls; and

6. The registrants other
certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent
evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.



|                                      |  |                                               |  |                 
|------------------------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------
|/s/ Daniel L. Hefner Daniel
L. Hefner |  | Chief Executive Officer, President & Director |  | January 12, 2007
|                                      |
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
 Manhattan, Kansas (NBAF)
 close




            Search small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home People & Locations







Tanya  Rollins
                        Location Support Staff

                        




                        
                        Financial Technician
                        Phone: (785) 712-3227
                        
                        
                        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
1 – JUDGMENT 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

PORTLAND DIVISION 

TAISSA AND RAY ACHCARWINKELS, individually and as Parents and 

Next Friends of S.A., a minor, 

Plaintiffs,

v. 

LAKE OSWEGO SCHOOL DISTRICT, 

an Oregon municipal corporation; 

HEATHER BECK, an individual; 

JENNIFER SCHIELE, an individual; IAN 

LAMONT, an individual; KAYLA 

NORDLUM, an individual; ASHLEY 

NORDLUM, an individual; and 

SUZANNE YOUNG, an individual; and 

UNKNOWN STAFF, unknown 

individuals, 

Defendants. 

Case No. 3:15-cv-00385-MO 

JUDGMENT 

MOSMAN, J., 

This matter came before the Court and was tried before a jury from October 31, 2017, 

through November 3, 2017, with the Honorable Michael W. Mosman presiding. Based on the 

verdict of the jury, the Court orders that Plaintiffs Taissa and Ray Achcar-Winkels, as Next 

Friends of S.A., a minor, recover on S.A.’s claim of negligence from defendant Lake Oswego 

School District the amount of seventy thousand dollars ($70,000.00), plus post judgment interest 

at the rate of 1.6 percent per annum, beginning from the date of this Judgment until paid. 

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case 3:15-cv-00385-MO Document 312 Filed 12/12/17 Page 1 of 2
2 – JUDGMENT 

All other claims asserted by plaintiffs are dismissed with prejudice and without fees and 

costs to any party. 

DATED this _____ day of December, 2017. 

___________________________

MICHAEL W. MOSMAN

Chief United States District Judge 

12

 /s/ Michael W. Mosman

Case 3:15-cv-00385-MO Document 312 Filed 12/12/17 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.1




Certification of


Chief Executive Officer


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





I, David M. Demshur, Chief Executive Officer of Core Laboratories N.V. (the "Company"), hereby certify that the accompanying report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010, filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable,
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, (the "Report").





I further certify that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








Date: April 29, 2010
/s/ David M. DemshurName: David M. DemshurTitle: Chief Executive Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rayna A. Kelly, Appellant.

[946 NYS2d 822]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Russell E Buscaglia, A.J.), rendered December 2, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon her plea of guilty, of grand larceny in the fourth degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting her upon her plea of guilty of grand larceny in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 155.30 [1]) and criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree (§ 165.45 [1]), defendant contends that the waiver of the right to appeal is not valid and challenges the severity of the sentence. Although the record establishes that defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived the right to appeal *(see generally People v Lopez,*6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]), we conclude that the valid waiver of the right to appeal does not encompass the challenge to the severity of the sentence because Supreme Court failed to advise defendant of the potential periods of incarceration or the potential maximum term of incarceration *(see People v Newman,*21 AD3d 1343 [2005]; *People v McLean,*302 AD2d 934 [2003]; *cf. People v Lococo,*92 NY2d 825, 827 [1998]; *People v Hidalgo,*91 NY2d 733, 737 [1998]), and there was no specific sentence promise at the time of the waiver *(cf. People v Semple,*23 AD3d 1058, 1059 [2005], *lv denied*6 NY3d 852 [2006]). Nevertheless, on the merits, we conclude that the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present — Scudder, P.J., Smith, Centra, Sconiers and Martoche, JJ.
#### North Shore Mart, Respondent, v F. W. Woolworth Co., Appellant.

Although the meaning of the term "demolish” is not necessarily confined to the complete razing of a building *(see, Jack LaLanne Biltmore Health Spa v Builtland Partners,*99 AD2d 705, *appeal dismissed*62 NY2d 777; *Friedman v Ontario Holding Corp.,*279 App Div 23, *affd*304 NY 625), the evidence submitted by the plaintiff on this motion for summary judgment did not establish that the completed and proposed building modifications herein constitute the demolition of "more than 50% of the ground floor building area * * * in the shopping center of which the demised premises is a part”, as that term is defined in paragraph 6 of the lease agreement. *575Accordingly, summary judgment should have been denied. Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Brown and Eiber, JJ., concur.