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


<ARTICLE>  5

<S>                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                 DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                      JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                             11,234,000
<SECURITIES>                                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      11,501,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                        1,709,000
<INVENTORY>                                           658,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   23,421,000
<PP&E>                                             10,364,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                      6,836,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     31,796,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              10,287,000
<BONDS>                                                    00
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      00
<PREFERRED>                                               120
<COMMON>                                              181,000
<OTHER-SE>                                         97,596,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       31,796,000
<SALES>                                            13,739,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   13,739,000
<CGS>                                              12,882,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      12,882,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   (301,000)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       (28,506)
<INCOME-TAX>                                          900,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (29,406,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                             00
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            00
<CHANGES>                                                  00
<NET-INCOME>                                      (29,406,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                           (1.71)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           (1.71)



</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**








**CERTIFICATION
      OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**


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


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
      2002**





I,
      Phillip Michael Hardy, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
      Report of eLinear, Inc. on Form 10-QSB/A (First Amendment) for the quarterly
      period ended September 30, 2004, fully complies with the requirements of Section
      13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
      contained in such Form 10-QSB/A fairly presents in all material respects the
      financial condition and results of operations of eLinear, Inc.





Date:
      April 3, 2006











By:
      _/s/  Phillip Michael Hardy______________


Phillip
      Michael Hardy


Principal
      Financial and Accounting Officer
#### McCONE v. GALLAGHER.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 20, 1896.)

Action by Alexander C. McCone against Patrick Gallagher.

No opinion. Motion granted upon payment of $20 costs. See 39 N. Y. Supp. 1128.
#### JAQUES, Respondent, v. NEW YORK EL. RY. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department.

May 18, 1894.)

Action by Zachariah Jaques against the New York Elevated Railway Company.

Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and FOLLETT and PARKER, JJ.

H. McWilliams, for appellant.

C. A. B. Pratt, for respondent.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
#### In the Matter of Samed S. and Others, Infants. Erie County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Saleh A., Appellant, et al., Respondent.

[945 NYS2d 899]

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Margaret O. Szczur, J.), entered September 10, 2010 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10. The order adjudicated the subject children to be neglected and abused.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

*1407Memorandum: Respondent father appeals from an order adjudging several children under his care and control to be neglected and abused. Prior to the hearing on the issue whether the father was “a person legally responsible” pursuant to Family Court Act § 1012 (g), the father had pleaded guilty to sexually abusing one child (hereafter, victim) and was sentenced to a term of incarceration. We reject the father’s contention that the petition should have been dismissed because he pleaded guilty to a count in the indictment that alleged sexual contact in December 2004, not July 2006, as alleged in the Family Court petition. The proof adduced at the hearing on the issue whether the father was a “person legally responsible” established that the sexual contact occurred in December 2004. Thus, inasmuch as the proof does not conform to the allegations of the petition, the court may amend the allegations to conform to the proof (see § 1051 [b]), and the petition is not subject to dismissal on that ground. We have considered the father’s remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit. Present — Scudder, P.J., Smith, Centra, Lindley and Martoche, JJ.
**Exhibit32.2**

** **

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of ILEX Oncology, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q forthe period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Mark P. Mellin, ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

2.             Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
|   |          /s/  Mark P. Mellin |                                                |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|
|   | Name:                                                                     | Mark P. Mellin                                      |
|   | Title:                                                                    | Senior Vice  President and Chief  Financial Officer |
|   | Date:                                                                     | August 14, 2003                                     |
|        |                                                                           |                                                     |  |

 

----
CONSENT OF DR. MIKE ARMITAGE





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/ Dr. Mike Armitage

Dr. Mike Armitage





March 29, 2007
#### Jean Walton Leser, Respondent, v Christopher Penido, Appellant.

[947 NYS2d 441]

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul G. Feinman, J), entered September 28, 2010, which, inter alia, granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on her cause of action for libel per se, and appeal from order, same court (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered March 23, 2011, which granted judgment to plaintiff and directed the parties to settle judgment, deemed appeals from order and judgment (one paper), same court (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered March 23, 2011, awarding plaintiff compensatory and punitive damages and directing a hearing on attorneys’ fees (CPLR 5501 [c]; 5520 [c]), and, so considered, said judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeal from order, same court (Paul G. Feinman, J.), entered January 6, 2011, which denied defendant’s motion for reargument, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a non-appealable paper. Appeal from the decision of the same court (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered January 19, 2012, which, following a hearing, awarded plaintiff $20,000 in attorneys’ fees and directed the parties to settle order and judgment on notice, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a non-appealable paper.

The record demonstrates that defendant is responsible for blog and website postings that, on their face, impugned plaintiff’s chastity and therefore were libelous per se *(see Ava v NYP Holdings, Inc.,*64 AD3d 407, 412 [2009], *lv denied*14 NY3d 702 [2010]). Defendant admitted that he created the website that posted the remarks and pornographic materials and that he alone possessed the password to get into the website, and plaintiffs unrebutted expert evidence linked defendant’s IP addresses and a telephone number to the subject website and to his own business website. The evidence adduced at the hearing on damages demonstrates disinterested malevolence on defendant’s part, which establishes plaintiffs entitlement to attorneys’ fees and supports the court’s award of both compensatory and punitive damages *(see Chiavarelli v Williams,*281 AD2d 255 [2001]). To the extent plaintiff challenges the amount of at*579torneys’ fees awarded, his arguments are unavailing, since no appeal lies from a decision directing the parties to settle order, and there is no indication in the record that an order was settled. Nor do we reach defendant’s challenge to an order that sealed the pleadings and an exhibit, since the record contains no notice of appeal therefrom. Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Catterson, Acosta, Freedman and Román, JJ.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT
MARIE JEANLIUS, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-2123 ) NAPLES GRANDE BEACH ) RESORT, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed April 24, 2019. Appeal from the Commission on Human Relations; Lee County. Marie Jeanlius, pro se. Laura E. Prather and Nicole Santamaria of Jackson Lewis, P.C., Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
CASANUEVA, MORRIS, and SMITH, JJ., Concur.
# C_2021244EN.01000301.xml

| 22.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 244/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 244/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10256 — I Squared Capital/TDR Capital/Aggreko)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 244/03)

On 16 June 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 32021M10256. 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 32021M10256. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

---
# C_2021504EN.01004101.xml

| 14.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 504/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 504/41

---

Notice for the attention of persons subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP, as implemented by Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2021/2199, and in Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012, as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2194,concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria

(2021/C 504/14)

The following information is brought to the attention of the persons that appear in Annex I to Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP (1), as implemented by Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2021/2199 (2), and in Annex II to Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 (3), as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2194 (4), concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria.

The Council of the European Union has decided that those persons should be included in the list of persons and entities in Annex I to Decision 2013/255/CFSP and Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 36/2012. The grounds for designation of those persons appear in the relevant entries in those Annexes.

The attention of the persons concerned is drawn to the possibility of making an application to the competent authorities of the relevant Member State(s) as indicated on the websites in Annex III to Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012, in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments (cf. Article 16 of the Regulation).

The persons concerned may submit a request to the Council, together with supporting documentation that the decision to include them on the above-mentioned list should be reconsidered, before 1 March 2022, to the following address:

| Council of the European Union |
| --- |
| General Secretariat |
| RELEX.1.C |
| Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175 |
| 1048 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

RELEX.1.C

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu

Any observations received will be taken into account for the purpose of the Council’s next review, pursuant to Article 34 of Decision 2013/255/CFSP and Article 32(4) of Regulation (EU) No 36/2012, of the list of designated persons and entities.

The attention of the persons concerned is also drawn to the possibility of challenging the Council’s decision before the General Court of the European Union, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 275, second paragraph, and Article 263, fourth and sixth paragraphs, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ L 147, 1.6.2013, p. 14.

(2)  OJ L 445 I, 13.12.2021, p. 23.

(3)  OJ L 16, 19.1.2012, p. 1.

(4)  OJ L 445 I, 13.12.2021, p. 7.

---
#### Exhibit 99.1

#### CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Each of the undersigned
hereby certifies, in his capacity as an officer of Coast Casinos, Inc. (the
Company), for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his
knowledge:

- the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended September
30, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and
- the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.

|Date: November 14, 2002                                             
|--------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Michael J. Gaughan                                              
|Michael J. Gaughan
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer

|Date: November 14, 2002                                
|-------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Gage Parrish                                       
|Gage Parrish
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
U.S DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD 

(JN~~ED STATJ.3 COAST GUARD 

Complainant 

vs. 

DARRELL EUGENE LOWE 

Respondent 

Docket Number GG S&R 07-0610 

CG Case No. 309 1 102 

DEFAULT ORDER 

Issued: February 7,2008 

Issued bv: Michael J. Devine, Administrative Law Judge 

On January 7,2007, the Investigating OEficer at Marinc Safety Unit Gafveston filed a 

Molion fur Default Order. seeking revocation of the Respondent's Merchant Mariner's 

Document, which Motion is incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof. 

On February 4; 2008 this Suspension and Revocation proceeding was assigned to the 

undersigned Administrative Law Judge for tlie U.S. Coast Guard for adjudication of the Motion 

for Default. The matter was taken under advisement and a complete review of this case was 

made. According to the case file, a copy of rhe original Complaint, datcd November 13, 2007 

was duly servcd upon the Respondent. via personal scrvice on November 19,2007. Pu'o answer 

bas ever been fkd. 'The Default Motiori was served by the Coast Guard upon the Respondent by 

Certified %%ail on January 7, 2008 and a receipt of service dated January 11,2007 was received. 

To date, Rcspondenr has not fiied an Answer to thc origrnal Complaint. w~th either the 
Investigating Officer or the Coast Guard Administrative Law Judge Docketing Center, 

and no response to the Default Motion has been received. 

Upon consideration of the record, 1 find that the Reqpondent is in DEFAULT. A default 

constitutes an adrnissio~? of ali facts alleged in the Complaint and a waiver of the Respondent's 

rigllt to a hearing. (33 CFR $ 20.310) 

Accordingly, I hereby ORDER that the alleged violation of Use of or Addiction to the 

Use of Dangerous Drugs is PROVED. I have carefully reviewed the Complaint and the Motion 

for Default and find that the proposed sanction is appropriate under the provisions of 46 CFR 8 

5.569. 

SANCTION 

IT IS OIWERED that your Mariner's Document is hereby REVOKED. You must 

immediately surrender your document to the Coast Guard. Xf you knowingly continue to 

use your document, you may be subject to criminal prosecution. 

Under 33 CFR 20.310(e) for good cause shown, an Administrative Law Judge may set 

aside this finding of Default. You may file a motion to set aside the finding with the ALl 

Docketing Center; Baltimore. 

Service of this Order of Revocation upon you serves to notify you of your right to appeal 

as sel forth in 33 CFR Subpart 3, Section 20.1001. (Attachment A). 

~dphinistrative Law Judge 

United States Cnsst &srd 

Done and Datcd on Februarj 5; 2008 at 

Norfolk, &'A
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2267 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2267

 To amend title 11, United States Code, to provide an exception to the 
avoidance of transactions by bankruptcy trustee under section 548 where 
the transaction was a good faith payment by a parent of post secondary 
               education tuition for that parent's child.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 12, 2015

Mr. Collins of New York (for himself and Mr. Farenthold) introduced the 
  following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 11, United States Code, to provide an exception to the 
avoidance of transactions by bankruptcy trustee under section 548 where 
the transaction was a good faith payment by a parent of post secondary 
               education tuition for that parent's child.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``The PACT (Protecting All College 
Tuition) Act of 2015''.

SEC. 2. EXCEPTION TO SECTION 548 AVOIDANCE.

    Section 548 of title 11, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following:
    ``(f) A payment of tuition by a parent to an institution of higher 
education (as defined in either section 101 or 102 of the Higher 
Education Act) for the education of that parent's child is not a 
transfer covered under paragraph (1)(B).''.
                                 <all>
```
#### In the Matter of Neil M. Siskind, Petitioner, v Courtney A. Schael, Appellant. Roberta Nancy Kaufman, Nonparty Respondent.

Submitted January 2, 2007;

decided February 15, 2007

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the orders sought to be appealed from do not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.

Judge Jones taking no part.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Evan P. Guzman, Appellant.

[945 NYS2d 904]

Appeal from an order of the Monroe County Court (Frank E Geraci, Jr., J.), entered January 25, 2011. The order determined that defendant is a level two risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: On appeal from an order determining that he is a level two risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law § 168 *et seq.),*defendant contends that County Court erred in relying upon facts set forth solely in the case summary. We reject that contention. The case summary *1442may constitute clear and convincing evidence of the facts alleged therein and, where, as here, the defendant does not dispute the facts contained in the case summary, the case summary alone is sufficient to support the court’s determination *(see People v Hubel,*70 AD3d 1492, 1493 [2010]; *People v Girup,*9 AD3d 913, 913-914 [2004]; *see generally People v Mingo,*12 NY3d 563, 571-573 [2009]). Here, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the court correctly relied upon the case summary in assessing points against defendant under the risk factor for failure to accept responsibility and expulsion from treatment *(see People v Murphy,*68 AD3d 832, 833 [2009], *lv dismissed*14 NY3d 812 [2010]), as well as the risk factor for improper conduct while confined *(see People v Vaughn,*26 AD3d 776, 777 [2006]). Further, defendant failed to establish his entitlement to a downward departure from the presumptive risk level *(see People v Vacanti,*26 AD3d 732, 733 [2006], *lv denied*6 NY3d 714 [2006]; *People v Hamelinck,*23 AD3d 1060 [2005]). Present— Smith, J.P., Fahey, Peradotto, Sconiers and Martoche, JJ.