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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                      15,715,126
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               13,431,925
<ALLOWANCES>                                   218,873
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,885,583
<PP&E>                                      21,566,649
<DEPRECIATION>                               9,803,636
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              63,565,176
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       10,628,428
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       164,929
<OTHER-SE>                                  50,550,859
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                63,565,176
<SALES>                                     40,549,322
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            40,549,322
<CGS>                                       19,427,635
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               21,342,115
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             370,747
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                729,031
<INCOME-TAX>                                   892,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (162,969)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (162,969)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.01)
        

</TABLE>
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


C\_2021332EN.01000701.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 18.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 332/7 |

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.10423 — AEA Investors/Polygon Holding)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 332/06)

1.

On 6 August 2021, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(1)](#ntr1-C_2021332EN.01000701-E0001).

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | AEA Investors LP (‘AEA’, USA), |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Polygon Holding AB (‘Polygon’, Sweden). |

AEA acquire(s) within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of Polygon.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | for AEA: private equity firm with investments in a variety of sectors, in particular value-added industrial products, specialty chemicals, consumer/retail and services. |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | for Polygon: provider of property damage restoration services and temporary climate solutions. |

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(2)](#ntr2-C_2021332EN.01000701-E0002) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

4.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.10423 — AEA Investors/Polygon Holding

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu

Fax +32 22964301

Postal address:

| |
| --- |
| European Commission |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

---

[(1)](#ntc1-C_2021332EN.01000701-E0001)  [OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2004_024_R_TOC) (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

[(2)](#ntc2-C_2021332EN.01000701-E0002)  [OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOC_2013_366_R_TOC).

---
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2131 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2131

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located 
at 83 Meeting Street in Charleston, South Carolina, as the ``J. Waties 
                       Waring Judicial Center''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 30, 2015

 Mr. Clyburn (for himself, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Wilson of South Carolina, 
Mr. Duncan of South Carolina, Mr. Gowdy, Mr. Mulvaney, and Mr. Rice of 
 South Carolina) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
           the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located 
at 83 Meeting Street in Charleston, South Carolina, as the ``J. Waties 
                       Waring Judicial Center''.

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

SECTION 1. J. WATIES WARING FEDERAL BUILDING AND UNITED STATES 
              COURTHOUSE.

    (a) Designation.--The Federal building and United States courthouse 
located at 83 Meeting Street in Charleston, South Carolina, shall be 
known and designated as the ``J. Waties Waring Judicial Center''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal building and 
United States courthouse referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed 
to be a reference to the ``J. Waties Waring Judicial Center''.
                                 <all>
```
Skip to main content

Privacy Policy•Site map

# Release of Vaccine Records

Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 18, all filings in vaccine cases, other than public decisions and judgments, are restricted to the parties to the case and the assigned special master/judge. Thus, any request for copies of vaccine files, other than public decisions and judgments, must comply with the following:

1. Requests by a party to the case:
                                    - 	Proof of identification:                                       - 		State-issued driver's license		
                                      - 		State-issued identification card		
                                      - 		U.S. passport issued by the U.S. Department of State		
                                      - 		U.S. military ID		
                                      - 		State, county, or local government ID		
                                      - 		Permanent resident card, or "green card," issued by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services		
                                      - 		Foreign passport		
                                      - 		Driver's license officially issued in Mexico or Canada		
                                      - 		Digital driver's license

2. Requests by a third party:
                                    - 	a verified consent of the attorney of record for the United States; and either	
                                    - 	(a) a verified consent of the attorney of record for the petitioner; or  	(b) the consent of the individual petitioner, including either:                                       - 		Notarization; or		
                                      - 		Proof of identification (see above)

Questions regarding records requests may be directed to the Clerk’s Office at (202) 357-6406.

Howard T. Markey National Courts Building • 717 Madison Place, NW, Washington, DC 20439 • 202-357-6400
#### B.N. Zwirn Special Opportunities Fund, L.P., Respondent, v Brin Investment Corp., Appellant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant. Brin Management LLC, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent. Brin Investment Corp., Appellant, v D.B. *448Zwirn Special Opportunities Fund, L.P., Respondent.

[945 NYS2d 556]

Amended judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bernard J. Fried, J.), entered February 7, 2011, upon a jury verdict in favor of D.B. Zwirn Special Opportunities Fund, L.E and Brin Management LLC against Brin Investment Corp., unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeal from judgment, same court and Justice, entered February 7, 2011, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as moot.

The trial court correctly instructed the jury on the alternative legal theories, ratification and novation, by which Brin Investment, a nonsignatory to the agreement, could be bound by the agreement. To the extent Brin Investment argues that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding of novation, its claim is unpreserved since it did not move for a directed verdict at the close of the evidence *(see Santiago v New York City Hous. Auth.,*268 AD2d 203 [2000]). In any event, the jury could rationally have concluded that Brin Management’s obligations under the agreement were extinguished and that Brin Investment was substituted as the manager under the agreement *(see Wasserstrom v Interstate Litho Corp.,*114 AD2d 952, 954 [1985]).

The court properly excluded from evidence a spreadsheet prepared for settlement discussions *(see*CELR 4547). It properly admitted into evidence as a business record an annotated e-mail exchange made during negotiations of the agreement *(see*CELR 4518 [a]), and admitted as an admission of fact Brin Investment’s letter claiming indemnity rights under the agreement at issue *(see e.g. Central Petroleum Corp. v Kyriakoudes,*121 AD2d 165 [1986], *lv dismissed*68 NY2d 807 [1986]). Concur— Gonzalez, P.J., Friedman, Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels and Roman, JJ.
STRAWBERRY RIVER NEAR DUCHESNE, UTAHLatitude: 40.154Longitude: -110.556Elevation: 5730

STRAWBERRY RIVER NEAR DUCHESNE, UTAH

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Currant Creek Site Page...



Currant Creek

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Daniels-Strawberry Site Page...



Daniels-Strawberry

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Wilbur Bench Site Page...



Wilbur Bench

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Strawberry Divide Site Page...



Strawberry Divide

Courtesy NRCS - Go to White River #1 Site Page...



White River #1
1 In The



### Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO

. 09

- 1 2

- 00 500

- C V



### ____________________

IN THE ESTATE OF JOHN A. BANKSTON

_______________________________________________________ ______________

On A ppeal from the County Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No

. 82,384

________________________________________________________ _____________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The appellant, Todd Gessell

, joined by the appellee, Kelley Marie Bankston, filed

a motion to dismiss this appeal. The motion is voluntarily made by the parties prior to

any decision of this Court. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1 . We grant the motion and dismiss

the appeal.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

________________________________ DAVID GAULTNEY

Justice

Opinion Delivered June 13, 2013

Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Horton, JJ.
Listen

# The Insular Cases and the Doctrine of the Unincorporated Territory and its Effects on the Civil Rights of the Residents of Puerto Rico

February 12, 2024

The Puerto Rico Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights announces the publication of its first memorandum as part of its study on the effects of the Insular Cases and the Non-Incorporation Doctrine on the civil rights of the residents of Puerto Rico. This is the first publication of the Advisory Committee, which was established in 2022, and is the first memorandum written in Spanish and translated to English by the Commission.

This memorandum is the first in a series that the Committee will develop over the course of its project, culminating in a final report. With a focus on a general overview of the topic, the Committee highlights a series of findings and recommendations identified in testimony received from subject matter experts and community representatives who spoke from historical, academic, and legal perspectives, as well as lived experiences. The testimony captured a wide breadth of information, from the historical context of the Insular Cases and the relationship between Puerto Rico and the federal government, to the effect on the quality of life of people impacted by the lack of full access to federal public programs, such as older adults, veterans, and individuals with disabilities. The Committee plans to develop its own recommendations as it moves forward with its project.

Memo

Memo (Spanish)

Press Release

Puerto Rico

-  All Reports 
-  Annual Statutory Enforcement 
-  Briefing Reports 
-  Advisory Committees Reports 
-  Budget and Performance 
-  FOIA Reports 
-  Data Inventory Program 
-  Civil Rights Complaints 
-  Historical Publications 
-  Archives
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SARAH RODRIGUEZ, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

AKIMA INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES, 

LLC and AKIMA, LLC, 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-16262 

D.C. No. 4:16-cv-03607-PJH 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Phyllis J. Hamilton, Chief Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted December 20, 2018

San Francisco, California

Before: M. SMITH, NGUYEN, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

Sarah Rodriguez appeals the district court’s order granting summary 

judgment in favor of her former employer, Akima Infrastructure Services, LLC and 

Akima, LLC (together, “Akima”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 

Reviewing de novo, see Bravo v. City of Santa Maria, 665 F.3d 1076, 1083 (9th 

Cir. 2011), we reverse and remand. 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

FILED

JAN 9 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

Rodriguez argues that a genuine dispute of material fact exists regarding 

whether Akima replaced her while she was on leave under the Family and Medical 

Leave Act (“FMLA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601 et seq. We agree. 

Rodriguez is entitled to restoration to her position under 29 U.S.C. 

§ 2614(a)(1), which means a “return[] to the same position the employee held 

when leave commenced, or to an equivalent position . . . even if the employee has 

been replaced or his or her position has been restructured to accommodate the 

employee’s absence.” 29 C.F.R. § 825.214. There is no dispute that while 

Rodriguez was on protected leave for her pregnancy, Akima suffered a substantial 

decline in its business that forced it to restructure. Akima argues that it eliminated 

Rodriguez’s position during this restructure. 

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Rodriguez, Bravo, 665 

F.3d at 1083, however, a genuine dispute of fact remains as to whether Rodriguez 

was replaced by Peter Menig. Despite the differences in pay and job titles between 

Rodriguez and Menig, Rodriguez contends that they essentially performed the 

same recruiting tasks, with one exception for her minimal participation in new-hire 

orientations. Rodriguez also claims that prior to her leave, her supervisor informed 

her that Akima would hire a replacement with sufficient overlap so that Rodriguez 

could train the replacement. Based on that understanding, Rodriguez emailed 

others at Akima that Menig would be taking over her responsibilities. Rodriguez’s 
3 

testimony creates a sufficient, triable question of fact to survive summary 

judgment. 

The parties agree that Rodriguez’s remaining claims rise and fall with the 

FMLA claim. See Rogers v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 130 Cal. Rptr. 3d 350, 355 (Cal. 

Ct. App. 2011) (explaining that the FMLA and CFRA “contain nearly identical 

provisions”); Merrick v. Hilton Worldwide, Inc., 867 F.3d 1139, 1150 (9th Cir. 

2017) (holding that wrongful termination requires a violation of public policy 

“embodied in statute”).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.
#### Gregory Boomer, Appellant, v James E. Gross, Respondent.

Submitted March 26, 2007;

decided April 3, 2007

Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that no appeal lies as of right from the unanimous order of the Appellate Division absent the direct involvement of a substantial constitutional question (CPLR 5601).
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A19A0374. CARLOS EASTMAN v. GLOBALPERSONNELSERVICES,INC.

et al.

In this direct appeal, Carlos Eastman seeks review of the superior court’s order

affirming a decision of the State Board of Workers’ Compensation. However, an

appeal from a decision of the superior court reviewing a decision of the State Board

of Workers’ Compensation must be brought by application for discretionary appeal.

See OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (1);Adivari v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 221 Ga. App. 279 (471

SE2d 59) (1996). Because Eastman failed to follow the proper appellate procedure, his

appeal is hereby DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. See Adivari, supra.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

October 02, 2018

10/02/2018
# C_2022117EN.01034901.xml

| 11.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 117/349 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 117/349

---

P9_TA(2021)0379

Amending Council Framework Decision 2002/465/JHA, as regards its alignment with EU rules on the protection of personal data ***I

European Parliament decision of 16 September 2021 referring the matter to the committee responsible for interinstitutional negotiations on the basis of the unamended proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Framework Decision 2002/465/JHA, as regards its alignment with EU rules on the protection of personal data (COM(2021)0020 — C9-0005/2021 — 2021/0008(COD)) (1)

(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

(2022/C 117/31)

---

(1)  Decision adopted under Rule 59(4), fourth subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure (A9-0236/2021).

---
#### Howard A. Cunningham, Appellant, v Aetna Casualty & Surety Company et al., Defendants, and State of New York, Respondent.

— Order and judgment unanimously modified, , on the law, and, as modified, affirmed, without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: Plaintiff, a Town Justice of the Town of Lodi, holds court sessions at his residence. While appearing for an arraignment, Gregory Morrell slipped and fell on a sidewalk on plaintiff’s premises. Morrell commenced an action against plaintiff for injuries allegedly suffered in that fall. Plaintiff commenced the instant action against the insurer on his homeowner’s policy, the insurer for the Town of Lodi, and the State of New York for a judgment declaring the rights and liabilities of the parties for the defense and indemnification of plaintiff in the personal injury action.

Supreme Court correctly determined that plaintiff was not a State employee within the meaning of Public Officers Law § 17. A Town Justice is a town officer (Town Law § 20 [1] [a], [b]) and, as such, is a town employee within the meaning of Public Officers Law § 18, which authorizes local governments and other public entities to defend and indemnify their employees for acts or omissions done within the scope of their public duties. However, the court should not have dismissed the action against the State. Instead, it should have made an appropriate declaration of the rights and liabilities between plaintiff and the State *(see,*Siegel, NY Prac § 440, at 583 [1978]).

*951Accordingly, we modify the judgment to include the following decretal paragraph: "ordered, adjudged, and decreed that plaintiff is not an employee of the State within the meaning of Public Officers Law § 17 and that the State of New York is not obligated to defend or indemnify plaintiff.” (Appeal from order and judgment of Supreme Court, Seneca County, Dugan, J. — declaratory judgment.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Pine and Balio, JJ.
STRAWBERRY RESERVOIR INFLOW FROM OPEN CHANNEL #2 (WATER HOLLOW TUNNEL)Latitude: 40.216Longitude: -111.109Elevation: None

STRAWBERRY RESERVOIR INFLOW FROM OPEN CHANNEL #2 (WATER HOLLOW TUNNEL)

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Hobble Creek Site Page...



Hobble Creek

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Currant Creek Site Page...



Currant Creek

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Daniels-Strawberry Site Page...



Daniels-Strawberry

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Strawberry Divide Site Page...



Strawberry Divide
#### Virginia C. Bills, Appellant, v Francis T. Bills et al., Respondents.

Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Denman, Boomer and Schnepp, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
financial statements for the nine months ended September 30, 2000, and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                           2,564
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               156,135
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 156,135
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          110,500
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,250
<OTHER-SE>                                      44,385
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   156,135
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                19,791
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,741
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (24,532)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (24,532)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (24,532)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>