alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[ARTICLE] 5
[LEGEND]
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from SEC Form
10-KSB and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.

<TABLE>
<S>                             <C>
[PERIOD-TYPE]                   YEAR
[FISCAL-YEAR-END]                          DEC-31-1996
[PERIOD-END]                               DEC-31-1996
[CASH]                                       1,821,014
[SECURITIES]                                         0
[RECEIVABLES]                                2,015,468
[ALLOWANCES]                                     5,631
<OTHER RECEIVABLES>                            314,874
[INVENTORY]                                     28,159
<PREPAID>                                       76,264
[CURRENT-ASSETS]                             4,250,148
[PP&E]                                       2,892,972
[DEPRECIATION]                               1,260,825
<OTHER ASSETS>                               1,425,240
[TOTAL-ASSETS]                               7,307,535
[CURRENT-LIABILITIES]                        1,938,241
[BONDS]                                              0
<OTHER LONG-TERM LIABILITIES>                  628,305
<TOTAL LIABILITIES>                          2,566,546
[PREFERRED-MANDATORY]                                0
[PREFERRED]                                          0
[COMMON]                                         2,727
[OTHER-SE]                                   4,738,262
[TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY]                 7,307,535
[SALES]                                              0
[TOTAL-REVENUES]                             9,507,370
[CGS]                                                0
[TOTAL-COSTS]                                2,570,840
[OTHER-EXPENSES]                             7,766,775
[LOSS-PROVISION]                                     0
[INTEREST-EXPENSE]                             219,089
<LOSS-PRETAX>                                1,049,334
<INCOME-TAX BENEFIT>                           366,925
<LOSS-CONTINUING>                              682,409
[DISCONTINUED]                                       0
[EXTRAORDINARY]                                      0
[CHANGES]                                            0
<NET-LOSS>                                     682,409
[EPS-PRIMARY]                                      .37
[EPS-DILUTED]                                      .37
</TABLE>
#### All data considered provisional and subject to revision.

      Storage                    
csv

      Inflow                    
csv

      Power Release                    
csv

      Total Release                    
csv

      Pool Elevation                    
csv

      Evaporation                    
csv

      Power Release Volume                    
csv

      Area                    
csv

      Delta Storage                    
csv

      Inflow Volume                    
csv

      Release Volume                    
csv

      Bypass Release                    
csv

      Bypass Release Volume                    
csv

#### All data considered provisional and subject to revision.

      Storage                    
json

      Inflow                    
json

      Power Release                    
json

      Total Release                    
json

      Pool Elevation                    
json

      Evaporation                    
json

      Power Release Volume                    
json

      Area                    
json

      Delta Storage                    
json

      Inflow Volume                    
json

      Release Volume                    
json

      Bypass Release                    
json

      Bypass Release Volume                    
json
Exhibit32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of TAGENTERTAINMENT CORP. (the "Company") on Form10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2005 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the"Report"), I, Steve Austin, Chief ExecutiveOfficer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|            |                                                                                                                     |
|------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (1)   | TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |

|           |                                                                                                                                                   |
|-----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (2)  | The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultof operations of the Company. |

/s/ SteveAustin                                                                

SteveAustin, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial OfficerNovember 17, 2005

----
# C_2021194EN.01000101.xml

| 21.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 194/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 194/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10173 — Luminus/Essent Belgium)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 194/01)

On 30 April 2021, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10173. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10173. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of IDX Systems
Corporation (the Company) for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, James H. Crook, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
and John A. Kane, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                   |  |                                            
|------------------ |  | -------------------------------------------
|Dated: May 6, 2004 |  | /s/ JAMES H. CROOK, JR.                    
|                   |  | James H. Crook, Jr. Chief Executive Officer



|                   |  |                                                                                                   
|------------------ |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: May 6, 2004 |  | /s/ JOHN A. KANE                                                                                  
|                   |  | John A. Kane Sr. Vice President, Finance and Administration, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: David Glen Mays v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-13-00296-CR

Trial court case number: B-120056-R

Trial court: 163rd District Court of Orange County

On December 16, 2013, counsel for appellant filed a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel. 

The motion is denied. It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Rebeca Huddle

X Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: January 14, 2014
#### SMITH v. SPRUCE PINE SAND & GRAVEL CO., ET AL.

(Decided June 27, 1912.)

Appeal from Franklin Chancery Court.

Heard before Hon. W. H. Simpson.

Williams & Jones, for appellant. B. H. Sargent, for appellee.

Per curiam.

Decree affirmed.
Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Independent Auditor

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 333-47017, 333-34559, and 333-56794) pertaining to the Univision
Communications Inc. 1996 Performance Award Plan, and the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-57712) of our reports dated February 17, 2003, with respect to the consolidated financial statements
and schedule of Univision Communications Inc. and subsidiaries included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2002.

/s/
Ernst & Young LLP

New
York, New York
March 21, 2003

---

QuickLinks
#### In the Matter of Marco De Los Santos, Appellant, v Division of Parole, Respondent.

[947 NYS2d 674]

*1322Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Connolly, J.), entered September 15, 2011 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the Board of Parole denying petitioner’s request for parole release.

Petitioner assisted his codefendants in the commission of an armed robbery by surveilling the store prior to the robbery and providing the weapon that was used to fatally shoot one of the storekeepers. As a result, he was convicted in 1997 of murder in the second degree and was sentenced to 15 years to life in prison. In July 2010, he made his first appearance before the Board of Parole seeking to be released to parole supervision. At the conclusion of the hearing, his request was denied and he was ordered held for an additional 24 months. After the determination was affirmed on administrative appeal, petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding. Following joinder of issue, Supreme Court dismissed the petition and this appeal ensued.

We affirm. It is well settled that parole release decisions are discretionary and will not be disturbed so long as the Board complied with the statutory requirements of Executive Law § 259-i *(see Matter of Valentino v Evans,*92 AD3d 1054, 1055 [2012]; *Matter of Matos v New York State Bd. of Parole,*87 AD3d 1193, 1194 [2011]).* We find no merit to petitioner’s assertion that the Board based its decision solely upon the serious nature of the crime. Rather, the record reveals that the Board also took into account the fact that this was petitioner’s first criminal conviction, he had not had a disciplinary infraction for years, he had completed many programs while in prison and he would be deported if released *(see Matter of Sanchez v Division of Parole,*89 AD3d 1305, 1306 [2011]). Moreover, petitioner was given the opportunity during the parole interview to discuss the mental illness and disability that he experienced as a result of a childhood virus *(see Matter of Abascal v New York State Bd. of Parole,*23 AD3d 740, 741 [2005]). Contrary to petitioner’s claim, the Board did not disregard the recommendations of the sentencing judge; the sentencing minutes were before the Board and reveal that the judge did not express an opinion on parole *(see generally Matter of Evans v Dennison,*75 AD3d 711, 712 *[2010]). In*sum, given that the Board’s decision does not exhibit *1323“ ‘irrationality bordering on impropriety’ ” *(Matter of Silmon v Travis,*95 NY2d 470, 476 [2000], quoting *Matter of Russo v New York State Bd. of Parole,*50 NY2d 69, 77 [1980]), we find no reason to disturb it.

Mercure, J.P., Rose, Lahtinen, Stein and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

*

 We note that while Executive Law § 259-i was amended in 2011 (see L 2011, ch 62, § 1, part C, § 1, subpart A, §§ 38-b, 38-f-l), the Board’s decision in this case was rendered prior to this amendment.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04

- 15

- 00081

- CR

IN RE Carlton STROUD

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Jason Pulliam, Justice

Delivered and Filed: March 4, 2015

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On February 18, 2015 , relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus. The court has

considered relator’s petition and is of the opinion that relator is not entitled to the relief sought.

Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 1997CR3770, styled The State of Texas v. Carlton Stroud , pending in the

290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Melisa Skinner presiding.
Exhibit 23.2

                         INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S CONSENT

The Board of Directors
Capital Title Group, Inc.:

We consent to  incorporation  by reference  in the  Registration  Statement  No.
333-66375 on Form S-8 of Capital Title Group, Inc. of our report dated March 12,
2001,  relating to the consolidated  balance sheet of Capital Title Group,  Inc.
and  subsidiaries  as  of  December  31,  2000,  and  the  related  consolidated
statements  of  operations,  stockholders'  equity,  and cash flows for the year
ended  December 31, 2000,  which report  appears in the December 31, 2000 annual
report on Form 10-KSB of Capital Title Group, Inc.

                                        /s/ KPMG LLP

Phoenix, Arizona
March 26, 2001
CONSENT OF JAMES MCCREA





Reference is made to the Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2006 (the Annual Report) of Cumberland Resources Ltd. (the Company), filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.



I hereby consent to the references to my name under the heading Narrative Description of Business -- Meadowbank Gold Project, Nunavut Territory, Canada in the Companys Annual Information Form for the year ended December 31, 2006 which is included as part of the Annual Report, and to all other references to my name included or incorporated by reference in the Annual Report.









/s/ James A. McCrea

James McCrea, P.Geo.





March 26, 2007
#### Coxe *et al.*v. Town, Receiver of Taxes.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, Third Department.*

May 26, 1890.)

Taxation—Void Assessment—Action to Vacate.

Under Laws ÍT. Y. 1880, c. 68, § 8, making a deed executed by the tax receiver “presumptive evidence that the sale, and all proceedings prior thereto, ” were regular, and authorizing any one interested in assessed property to sue to restrain a sale, an action may be brought to set aside an assessment, and restrain a sale thereunder, though the assessment is void, as such sale would create a cloud on plaintiff’s title.

Appeal from special term, Saratoga county.

Action by Mary J. Coxe and George F. Jones, as executors, etc., of Mary J. Jones, against Byron J. Town, receiver of taxes for the town and village of Saratoga Springs, to vacate an illegal assessment, and restrain a sale therefor. In 1888, and several years after the death of Mary J. Jones, the assessors set down among the names of the taxable inhabitants of the town of Sara-toga Springs the name “Mary J. Jones, (heirs,)” and assessed against that name the real estate described in the complaint. Laws R. Y. 1880, c. 68, an act to authorize the sale of lands in the village of Saratoga Springs for unpaid taxes and special assessments, provides (section 8) that a sale by the tax receiver, and the execution after two years of a deed to the purchaser, is “presumptive evidence that the sale, and all proceedings priorthereto, were regular, ” and that “any person interested in property upon which a tax or assessment has been, or may be, assessed or levied, may bring an action to vacate and set aside such tax or assessment, or any sale made by virtue thereof, and to enjoin and restrain the sale of any real or personal property.” From a judgment setting aside and vacating the tax, defendant appeals.

Argued before Learned, P. J., and Mayham, J.

*John L. Henning,*for appellant. *Charles 8. Lester,*for respondents.

Learned, P. J.

There is no question on the merits of this case. The only point is whether an action can be maintained to set aside this assessment. We have no doubt that the latter clause of section 8, c. 68, Laws 1880, gives *74this right. *Seminary*v. *Cramer,*10 Abb. N. C. 427. And, whatever may be the legal effect of an assessment like the present, it does, as a matter of fact, create a cloud on the plaintiff’s title. She cannot sell with that freedom with which she could sell if it were not for the alleged assessment. Those who desire to purchase are afraid when they see what purports to be an assessment, even though they may be advised that it is void. If the section above cited is intended to make an'exception to the rule which courts have adopted, it is a very excellent exception; and it would be well if the exception should become the general rule. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
The State of TexasAppellee/s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 11, 2015

No. 04-13-00891-CR

Donald F. HUFF,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011CR2990

Honorable Sid L. Harle, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

The panel has considered the State’s Motion for Rehearing, and the motion is DENIED.

_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 11th day of May, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
# C_2021184EN.01000701.xml

| 12.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 184/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 184/7

---

Summary of Commission Decision

of 31 March 2021

relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement

(Case AT.40023 - Cross-border access to pay-TV)

(notified under document C(2021) 2076)

(Only the English text is authentic)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 184/07)

On 31 March 2021, the Commission adopted a decision relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA agreement. In accordance with the provisions of Article 30 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1)
  , the Commission herewith publishes the names of the parties and the main content of the decision, having regard to the legitimate interest of undertakings in the protection of their business secrets.

(1)

By decision of 26 July 2016, notified under document C(2016) 4740 final (the ‘2016 Decision’), the Commission made commitments binding on Viacom Inc. and Paramount Pictures International Limited (formerly Viacom Global (Netherlands) B.V.).

(2)

By decision of 7 March 2019, notified under document C(2019) 1772 final (the ‘2019 Decision’), the Commission made similar commitments binding on The Walt Disney Company and The Walt Disney Company Limited (together ‘Disney’), Comcast Corporation, Universal Studios International B.V. and Universal Studios Limited (together ‘NBCUniversal’), Sony Corporation (currently Sony Group Corporation), CPT Holdings Inc. and Colgems Productions Limited (together ‘Sony Pictures’), Warner Media LLC and Warner Bros. International Television Distribution Inc. (together ‘Warner Bros.’), and Sky UK Limited and Sky Limited (together ‘Sky’).

(3)

By judgment of 9 December 2020 in Case C-132/19 P Groupe Canal + v Commission (2), the Court of Justice of the European Union annulled the 2016 Decision.

(4)

Since the scope of the commitments made binding by the 2019 Decision were essentially identical to those of the 2016 Decision, the Commission considers appropriate to withdraw the 2019 Decision.

(5)

The Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions issued a favourable opinion on 18 March 2021.

(6)

By this Decision, addressed to Disney, NBCUniversal, Sony Pictures, Warner Bros. and Sky, the Commission withdraws Decision C(2019) 1772 final of 7 March 2019.

---

(1)  OJ L 1, 4.1.2003, p. 1. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 411/2004 (OJ L 68, 6.3.2004, p. 1).

1

(2)  EU:C:2020:1007.

2

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF BLOUNT INTERNATIONAL, INC. FOR THE PERIOD ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 1998, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                              SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           9,574
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  168,182
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,991
<INVENTORY>                                    127,923
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               329,619
<PP&E>                                         388,608
<DEPRECIATION>                                 204,240
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 667,365
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          112,244
<BONDS>                                        161,689
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           389
<OTHER-SE>                                     341,344
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   667,365
<SALES>                                        631,471
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               631,471
<CGS>                                          437,151
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  437,151
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,759
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 75,204
<INCOME-TAX>                                    28,542
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             46,662
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 (1,984)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    44,678
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.16
        


</TABLE>