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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          60,539
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  194,819
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,413
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               261,643
<PP&E>                                          35,368
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 680,480
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          145,419
<BONDS>                                        193,935
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           330
<OTHER-SE>                                     331,643
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   680,480
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               620,169
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  415,554
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               148,028
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,313
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 45,060
<INCOME-TAX>                                    18,927
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             26,133
<DISCONTINUED>                                  22,691
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    48,824
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.39
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.39
        

</TABLE>
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/A) for the year ended December 31, 2002.

/s/
Ernst & Young LLP

New
York, New York
March 21, 2003

---

QuickLinks
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                       3,746,357
<SECURITIES>                                13,528,662
<RECEIVABLES>                                8,707,860
<ALLOWANCES>                                   765,873
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            26,438,522
<PP&E>                                       3,156,096
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,368,851
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              30,422,678
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        9,827,662
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,919
<OTHER-SE>                                  20,269,184
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                30,422,678
<SALES>                                     18,012,916
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            24,305,240
<CGS>                                        2,323,337
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,952,246
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            16,986,685
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               219,482
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,108
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,110,875
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,110,875
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,110,875
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .20


</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Daryl Hamm, Appellant.

[946 NYS2d 745]

*1483Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (M. William Boiler, A.J.), rendered July 16, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a nonjury verdict, of assault in the first degree and assault in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law by vacating that part convicting defendant of assault in the second degree and dismissing count three of the indictment and as modified the judgment is affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, following a nonjury trial, of assault in the first degree (Penal Law § 120.10 [1]) and assault in the second degree (§ 120.05 [1]). We reject defendant’s contention that certain evidentiary rulings made by Supreme Court deprived him of the right to present a defense and the right to a fair trial. The court did not abuse its discretion in determining that defendant’s proposed cross-examination of the victim’s father “was too speculative to establish a motive for fabrication” *(People v Poole,*55 AD3d 1349, 1350 [2008], *lv denied*11 NY3d 929 [2009]). Nor did the court improperly curtail the cross-examination of another prosecution witness with respect to the sworn statement made by her the day after the assault. That statement was not inconsistent with her trial testimony, and thus there was no basis for impeachment of her trial testimony based on that statement *(see People v Wise,*176 AD2d 595, 596 [1991], *lv denied*79 NY2d 866 [1992]; *People v Jones,*136 AD2d 740, 741 [1988], *lv denied*71 NY2d 969 [1988]).

Defendant further contends that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence because the court erred in rejecting his affirmative defense that he lacked criminal responsibility by reason of mental disease or defect *(see*Penal Law § 40.15). We reject that contention. “Where, as here, there was conflicting expert testimony on the issue of defendant’s mental condition, the determination of the trier of fact to accept or reject the opinion of an expert, in whole or in part, is entitled to deference” *[People v Amin,*294 AD2d 863, 863 [2002], *lv denied*98 NY2d 672, 674 [2002]; see *People v Stoffel,*17 AD3d 992, 993 [2005], *lv denied 5*NY3d 795 [2005]).

As the People correctly concede, however, assault in the second degree under Penal Law § 120.05 (1) is a lesser included offense of assault in the first degree under Penal Law § 120.10 (1) *(see People v Basciano,*54 AD3d 637 [2008]), and thus should have been considered only in the alternative as a lesser inclusory concurrent count of assault in the first degree *(see*CPL 300.40 [3] [b]; *People v Johnson,*81 AD3d 1428, 1429 [2011], *lv denied*
      *148416 NY3d 896 [2011]). We therefore modify the judgment accordingly. The sentence is not otherwise unduly harsh or severe. Present — Smith, J.P., Fahey, Carni, Sconiers and Martoche, JJ.
EXHIBIT 10.12

                               UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI

                                 April 10, 1998

Mr. Mead McCabe, Jr.
Genetic Vectors, Inc.
5201 N.W. 77 Avenue, Suite 100
Miami, Florida  33166

         Re:      License Agreement Effective September 7, 1990 (hereinafter
         "License Agreement") between the University of Miami and its School of
         Medicine (hereinafter "Licensor") and ProVec, Inc. which was
         subsequently assigned to Epi DNA, Inc., Genetic Vectors, Inc.
         (hereinafter "Licensee"), is a successor to ProVec, Inc. Institution
         file No. UM90-16, Chemical Method for Specifically Coupling Biotin to
         Guanosine in Nucleic Acids (hereinafter "Technology and Product").

Dear Mead:

         As we previously discussed, the University understands your company's
position, and is willing to make a brief accommodation to allow further product
development. The University recognizes that, according to Article 9.3 of the
above Agreement, the Licensee has an obligation to continue sales, and that if
the Licensee discontinues sales for more than three months that the Licensor may
terminate the Agreement. The University, as Licensor, has decided not to
terminate the License Agreement for breach of this obligation, and is waiving it
right to enforce this provision until August 31, 1998. The University reserves
its right to enforce this provision after August 31, 1998 and throughout the
remaining term of the License Agreement. The University expects the Licensee to
notify it of the date of first sale within thirty (30) days following August 31,
1998 as consideration for the University's waiving its right to terminate before
August 31, 1998.

         In addition, according to Provision 4.1 of the above Agreement, the
"Licensee agrees to take all action necessary" to enable Licensor to satisfy its
obligations under Public Law 96-517 as amended. The University, in order to
comply with federal law must submit a hard copy of each patent application as
filed showing the "federal support clause" and a hard copy of each issued patent
so that the information may be recorded and filed with the Department of Health
and Human Services. Please submit such information to my office by April 15th.

         If you have any questions or concerns please contact me as soon as
possible. Thank you for your assistance.

                                   Sincerely,

                                   /s/ Leslie Quinn
                                   --------------------------------
                                   Leslie Quinn
                                   Assistant Director
Enclosure
cc:      Dr. Gary S. Margules
         Mr. Mike Novo, Esq.
         Dr. Mead McCabe, Sr.


                          OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
                             P.O. BOX 016960 (M811)
                              MIAMI, FLORIDA 33101
                               TEL. (305) 243-5689
                               FAX: (305) 243-3510
#### SHIPMAN et al., Appellants, v. LONG ISLAND R. CO., Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

December 15, 1896.)

Action by James J. Shipman and another against the Long Island Railroad Company.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements, upon the opinion of the special term. 39 N. Y. Supp. 498. All concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert W. Cook, Appellant.

— Mikoll, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Monserrate, J.), rendered May 10, 1984, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree and grand larceny in the third degree.

After a jury trial, defendant was convicted of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree and grand larceny in the third degree. Defendant contends on this appeal, *inter alia,*that County Court erred in failing to rule on the record on his omnibus motion, made prior to trial, for a hearing pursuant to *People v Sandoval*(34 NY2d 371). There is no record of such a hearing, or of the court’s ruling concerning the use of prior convictions at trial. Defendant did not testify at trial. The " 'absence of a record effectively impedes any review respecting the correctness of the *Sandoval*ruling’ ” *(People v Culver,*102 AD2d 924, quoting *People v Henderson,*95 AD2d 875). Determination of this appeal should *823therefore be withheld and the matter remitted for at least an informal hearing to determine the basis for the *Sandoval*ruling so that the same may be reviewed by this court *(see, People v Anderson,*75 AD2d 988).

Decision withheld, and matter remitted to the County Court of Broome County for a hearing in accordance with the decision herein. Main, J. P., Weiss, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.
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 s ummary 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, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2

Rodriguez argues that a genuine dispute of material fact exist s 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

. The re is no dispute that while Rodriguez was on protected leave for her pregnancy , Akima suffer ed a substanti al
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 remain s as to whether Rodriguez was replaced by Peter Menig. Despite the differences in pay and job titles between Rodriguez and Menig, Rodrigu ez 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 rep lacemen t 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

. Rod r iguez’s3

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 an d 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 pub lic policy
“embodied in statute ”)

. REVERSED AND REMANDED.
#### Shirl Mayo, Appellant, v Cedar Manor Mutual Housing Corporation, Respondent.

[946 NYS2d 486]

— In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Sampson, J.), dated March 2, 2011, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that it neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of the icy condition alleged to have caused the plaintiff’s fall *(see Spinoccia v Fairfield Bellmore Ave., LLC,*95 AD3d 993 [2d Dept 2012]; *Christal v Ramapo Cirque Homeowners Assoc.,*51 AD3d 846, 846-847 [2008]).

In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of *914fact. The plaintiffs contentions as to when and how the patch of ice was formed were based on speculation and conjecture *(see Simmons v Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.,*84 NY2d 972, 973-974 [1994]; *Simon v PABR Assoc., LLC,*61 AD3d 663, 664 [2009]; *DeVito v Harrison House Assoc.,*41 AD3d 420, 421 [2007]; *cf. San Marco v Village/Town of Mount Kisco,*16 NY3d 111, 115 [2010]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Skelos, J.P., Florio, Lott and Miller, JJ., concur.
# C_2021154EN.01001201.xml

| 30.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 154/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 154/12

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.10208 — The Coca-Cola Company/Coca-Cola HBC/WABI CCH JV)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 154/07)

1.

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| — | The Coca-Cola Company (‘TCCC’, United States), |
| --- | --- |

—

The Coca-Cola Company (‘TCCC’, United States),

| — | Coca-Cola HBC AG (‘CCH’, Switzerland), |
| --- | --- |

—

Coca-Cola HBC AG (‘CCH’, Switzerland),

| — | WABI CCH B.V. (‘WABI CCH JV’, the Netherlands) |
| --- | --- |

—

WABI CCH B.V. (‘WABI CCH JV’, the Netherlands)

TCCC and CCH acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of WABI CCH JV.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares in a newly created company constituting a joint venture.

2.

| — | for TCCC: worldwide brand ownership and licensing of various trademarks used to market and sell non-alcoholic commercial beverages; production of soft drink concentrate and syrup, as well as finished beverages, |
| --- | --- |

—

for TCCC: worldwide brand ownership and licensing of various trademarks used to market and sell non-alcoholic commercial beverages; production of soft drink concentrate and syrup, as well as finished beverages,

| — | for CCH: producing, marketing, and selling TCCC-branded and other beverages in the EU, Eurasia and Africa; |
| --- | --- |

—

for CCH: producing, marketing, and selling TCCC-branded and other beverages in the EU, Eurasia and Africa;

| — | for WABI CCH JV: providing digital marketplace services connecting wholesalers, retailers, suppliers and consumers of consumer packaged goods. |
| --- | --- |

—

for WABI CCH JV: providing digital marketplace services connecting wholesalers, retailers, suppliers and consumers of consumer packaged goods.

3.

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

4.

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

Case M.10208 — The Coca-Cola Company/Coca-Cola HBC/WABI CCH JV

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 |

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

1

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.

2

---
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N
NO. 03-13-00038- CV

Drax M arlow, App ellant

v. Christian Nash an d Tai rus, LLC, App ellees

F ROM TH E CO UNTY COURT AT LAW NO . 1 O F TRAVIS CO UNTY NO. C-1 -CV- 11- 0129 61, H ONO RAB LE J. DAVID P HI LLIP S, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant Dra x Marlow has filed a Motion to Dismiss I nterlocutory Appea l stating that h e no longe r desires to bring this appea l. He cer tifies that appellee s’ counsel ag ree d to the motion. W e g rant the motion and dismiss this appea l. See Tex. R. App. P . 42.1(a)
.

J eff Rose, J ustice Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Pemberton and Rose Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion Filed: June 20, 2013
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001018745
<NAME> CSR GOLF GROUP, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          34,074
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,499,865
<ALLOWANCES>                                   394,200
<INVENTORY>                                    241,808
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,197,592
<PP&E>                                      15,029,435
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,225,512
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              16,079,543
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          592,461
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,102,207
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                16,079,543
<SALES>                                      1,675,553
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,327,786
<CGS>                                          789,970
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,264,964
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                21,437
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             197,472
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,290,626
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,290,626
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                425,276
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   425,276
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>