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

<ARTICLE> CT

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1993             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1993             DEC-31-1997
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              14,963,000              21,735,454
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                     19,000                       0
<COMMON>                                       717,000                   1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,565,000                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                14,963,000              21,735,454
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            14,624,000                 739,765
<INCOME-TAX>                                   514,000                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            883,000               (465,298)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   883,000               (465,298)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     4.29                (465.30)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     4.13                (465.30)


</TABLE>
# C_2021405EN.01000201.xml

| 7.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 405/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 405/2

---

Summary of European Union decisions on marketing authorisations in respect of medicinal products of 22 July 2021

(Published pursuant to Article 13 or Article 38 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1))

(2021/C 405/02)

| — | Issuing of a marketing authorisation (Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council): Accepted













  Date of the decision | Name of the medicinal product | INN (International Non-Proprietary Name) | Holder of the marketing authorisation | Number of the entry in the Community Register | Pharmaceutical form | ATC code (Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Code) | Date of notification |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 22.7.2021 | Ozawade | pitolisant | Bioprojet Pharma
  9 rue Rameau, 75002 Paris, France | EU/1/21/1546 | Film-coated tablet | N07XX11 | 23.7.2021 |

—

Issuing of a marketing authorisation (Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council): Accepted

Date of the decision

Name of the medicinal product

INN (International Non-Proprietary Name)

Holder of the marketing authorisation

Number of the entry in the Community Register

Pharmaceutical form

ATC code (Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Code)

Date of notification

22.7.2021

Ozawade

pitolisant

Bioprojet Pharma

9 rue Rameau, 75002 Paris, France

EU/1/21/1546

Film-coated tablet

N07XX11

23.7.2021

Anyone wishing to consult the public assessment report on the medicinal products in question and the decisions relating thereto is invited to contact:

| European Medicines Agency |
| --- |
| Domenico Scarlattilaan 6 |
| 1083 HS Amsterdam |
| NETHERLANDS |

European Medicines Agency

Domenico Scarlattilaan 6

1083 HS Amsterdam

NETHERLANDS

---

(1)  OJ L 136, 30.4.2004, p. 1.

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheet as of June 30, 1999 and the
unaudited condensed consolidated statement of operations for the six months
ended June 30, 1999, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         284,541
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  127,641
<ALLOWANCES>                                    10,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               500,563
<PP&E>                                         181,526
<DEPRECIATION>                                  91,643
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 981,057
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,076,033
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           689
<OTHER-SE>                                 (3,094,976)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   981,057
<SALES>                                        545,439
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               545,439
<CGS>                                           93,045
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  650,664
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (135,445)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              43,763
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (13,543)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (13,543)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (13,543)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.00)


</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Roy Coleman Gordon, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Thorp, J.), rendered December 21, 1981, convicting him of attempted *588murder in the second degree, robbery in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review (1) the denial, after a hearing (Kepner, J.), of the defendant’s application pursuant to CPL article 730 for an order declaring him unfit to proceed, and (2) the denial, after a hearing (Thorp, J.), of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress certain identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We find no basis to disturb the findings of the hearing court that the defendant was competent to stand trial *(see,*CPL 730.10 [1]), that his prolonged silence was in fact willful, and that he was malingering. Where the hearing court is presented with conflicting evidence of competency, great deference will be accorded its findings *(see, People v Carl, 58*AD2d 948, *revd on other grounds*46 NY2d 806). We further conclude that the trial court did not err in denying the defendant’s request for a second competency examination *(cf. People v Picozzi,*106 AD2d 413). The court properly found that the defendant’s continued silence over a period of nine months since the initial competency examination, without more, constituted an insufficient basis to direct further proceedings pursuant to CPL 730.30.

With respect to the suppression hearing, we find that the showup, which occurred shortly after the robbery and near the scene of the crime, was an appropriate procedure conducted in the interest of securing a prompt and reliable identification *(see, People v Love,*57 NY2d 1023). The court therefore properly declined to suppress the complainant’s identification testimony.

We have examined the remainder of the defendant’s contentions, including those raised in his *pro se*supplemental brief, and find them to be either unpreserved or without merit. Weinstein, J. P., Rubin, Kooper and Sullivan, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Matthew Jones, Appellant.

Submitted April 23, 2007;

decided April 26, 2007

Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Steven Banks, Esq., the Legal Aid Society, 199 Water Street, New York, NY 10038 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 74 (Monday, April 17, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 20430]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-9450]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Farm Service Agency


List of Warehouses and Availability of List of Cancellations and/
or Terminations

AGENCY: Farm Service Agency, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of publication.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Farm Service Agency has 
published a list of warehouses licensed under the United States 
Warehouse Act (7 U.S.C. 241 et seq.) as of December 31, 1999, as 
required by section 26 of that Act (7 U.S.C. 266). A list of 
cancellations or terminations that occurred during calendar year 1999 
is also available. Interested persons may obtain a copy of either list 
from the person listed below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Judy Fry, Farm Service Agency, 
Warehouse and Inventory Division, U.S. Department of Agriculture, STOP 
0553, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-0553, 
telephone 202-720-3822, or e-mail requests may be sent: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection" class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="256f50415c7a7a63575c655241460b4356440b505641440b424a53">[email protected]</a>.

    Signed at Washington, D.C., on April 10, 2000.
Keith Kelly,
Administrator, Farm Service Agency.
[FR Doc. 00-9450 Filed 4-14-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-05-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-91651) of The viaLink Company of our report dated
February 22, 1999, except as to the stock splits described in Note 8 and Note 13
relating to the 1997 and 1998 share and per share data, which is as of March 14,
2000, relating to the financial statements which appears in this Annual Report
on Form 10-KSB.


                                             /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
March 21, 2000
#### PHOENIX MILLS, Appellant, v. FIRST NAT. BANK OF AMSTERDAM, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

December 2, 1896.)

Action by tiie Phoenix Mills against the First n n National Bank of Amsterdam.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-1324

YA YING WU; BAO GUO ZHAO,

Petitioners,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals.

Submitted: October 5, 2010 Decided: October 29, 2010

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gregory Marotta, LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD TARZIA, Belle Mead, New 

Jersey, for Petitioners. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, 

Jennifer L. Lightbody, Senior Litigation Counsel, David H. 

Wetmore, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Ya Ying Wu and her husband, Bao Guo Zhao (collectively 

“Petitioners”), natives and citizens of the People’s Republic of 

China, petition for review of an order of the Board of 

Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing their appeal from the 

immigration judge’s denial of their requests for asylum and 

withholding of removal. Wu is the primary applicant for asylum; 

the claims of her husband are derivative of her application. 

See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3) (2006); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.21(a) (2010).

The Petitioners first challenge the determination that 

they failed to establish their eligibility for asylum. To 

obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility for 

relief, an alien “must show that the evidence he [or she] 

presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could 

fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” INS v. EliasZacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992). We have reviewed the 

evidence of record and conclude that the Petitioners fail to 

demonstrate that the evidence compels a contrary result. We 

therefore find that substantial evidence supports the denial of 

relief.

Additionally, we uphold the denial of the Petitioners’

request for withholding of removal. “Because the burden of 

proof for withholding of removal is higher than for asylum —

even though the facts that must be proved are the same — an 
3

applicant who is ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible 

for withholding of removal under [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3).” 

Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004). Because 

the Petitioners failed to establish that they are eligible for 

asylum, they cannot meet the higher standard for withholding of 

removal.

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
#### RUSSELL et al., Respondents, v. NEW YORK EL. R. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 6, 1896.)

Action by Joseph F. Bus-sell and others against the New York Elevated Bailroad Company.

J. C. Bushby, for appellant.

E. W. Tyler, for respondents.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice 11539]

Pursuant to section 451 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (the “Act”) (22 U.S.C. 2261), section 1-100(a)(1) of E.O. 12163, and Delegation of Authority No. 513, I hereby authorize, notwithstanding any other provision of law, the use of up to $11,781,000 made available to carry out provisions of the Act (other than the provisions of chapter 1 of part I of the Act) to provide assistance for the UN Support Office for Somalia.

                    This Determination and the accompanying Memorandum of Justification shall be promptly reported to the Congress. This Determination shall be published in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                

Dated: July 20, 2021.

Brian P. McKeon,

Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources.

[FR Doc. 2021-20406 Filed 9-20-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-25-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THERMO
FIBERGEN INC.'S ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 28, 1996
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-28-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-28-1996
<CASH>                                          58,388
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      768
<ALLOWANCES>                                        30
<INVENTORY>                                        312
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                59,502
<PP&E>                                           6,359
<DEPRECIATION>                                     538
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  71,033
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,025
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           100
<OTHER-SE>                                      11,821
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    71,033
<SALES>                                          2,223
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,223
<CGS>                                            1,388
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,388
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,300
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (367)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (367)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (367)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Hon. Walter J. Brudzinski

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

United States Coast Guard

Chief Judge Brudzinski has been a Coast Guard Administrative 

Law Judge since 2003 and was appointed Chief Judge in 2013. 

Coast Guard Administrative Law Judges hear and decide 

Merchant Mariner Credential suspension and revocation cases 

as well as cases initiated by the Department of Homeland 

Security and other agencies the Coast Guard supports. In 2003-

2005 he was temporarily assigned additional duties to hear 

cases for the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund. 

He is a graduate of the University of Maryland and George 

Mason University School of Law (with distinction) where he 

was on Law Review. He also holds a Master’s and Ph.D. in 

Judicial Studies from the University of Nevada as well as

Certificates in Judicial Development from the National Judicial College in Administrative Law

Adjudication Skills; Dispute Resolution Skills; and, General Jurisdiction Trial Skills. Chief Judge 

Brudzinski has lectured extensively on Administrative Adjudication, including presentations 

before the ABA’s Section on Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice, the Federal Bar 

Association, the Admiralty and Maritime Claims and Litigation Forum, and the University of 

Toulon, France. 

He has also authored articles on suspension and revocation proceedings with the most recent 

appearing in the PROCEEDINGS OF THE MARINE SAFETY AND SECURITY COUNCIL, titled Raising 

the Bar, (Winter 2015/16 at 38). Articles published in the MARITIME PROFESSIONAL: Mariners, 

Drug Testing and the Law, (2Q 2015 at 26); Stepping Up for the Mariner, (1Q 2015 at 40); Is 

chemical drug and alcohol testing of commercial vessel personnel effective? (3Q 2013 at 50); 

U.S. Coast Guard’s administrative adjudication: Unbiased and Fair, (3Q 2011 at 12). Articles 

published in other journals: Coast Guard administrative proceedings in drug cases resemble the 

civil law tradition, 42 J. MAR. L. & COM. 159 (2011); Mandatory drug testing of merchant 

marine personnel, THE MARITIME EXECUTIVE, April 13, 2010; and, Greater independence for 

ALJs plus cost savings for agencies: The Coast Guard Model, 30 J.NAALJ 1 (2010). 

Initially appointed Administrative Law Judge by the Social Security Administration in 1996, he 

was previously an Assistant and later a Deputy Commonwealth’s Attorney in Virginia Beach. He 

served in the Coast Guard as a commissioned officer afloat and ashore and was a Special 

Assistant U.S. Attorney, Eastern District of Virginia. He was admitted to practice in Virginia, 

Maryland, and Pennsylvania; the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia; the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit; the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces; and, the 

Supreme Court of United States. 

Professional affiliations include the American Bar Association, Judicial Division; the 

Federal Administrative Law Judges Conference; the Maritime Law Association of the United 

States; and, the Connecticut Maritime Association.
#### Ferris *v.*Armstrong Manuf’g Co.

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

July 18, 1890.)

Counter-Claim—Arising from Independent Transactions.

In an action for a wrongful arrest, defendant cannot set up as a counter-claim the judgment recovered by it in the action wherein plaintiff was- arrested, as the judgment does not arise out of the wrongful arrest, the transaction set forth in plaintiff’s complaint, nor is such judgment connected with the subject of plaintiff’s action, within the meaning of Code Civil Proc. N. Y. § 501, which permits a counter-claim to be pleaded when it is based on a cause of action arising out of the transaction set forth in plaintiff’s complaint, or when it is connected with the subject of the action.

Appeal from special term, Kings county.

Action by Francis J. 0. Ferris against the Armstrong Manufacturing Company for a wrongful arrest and imprisonment. Defendant in its answer set up a judgment as a counter-claim, which judgment “was recovered in the same action in which the plaintiff was arrested. ” Plaintiff demurred to the counter-claim, and from a judgment sustaining the demurrer, defendant appeals. For opinion.in,the action wherein plaintiff was arrested, see 4 H. Y. Supp. 610. ■

Code Civil Proc. H. Y. § 501, provides: “The counter-claim * * * must tend in some way to diminish or defeat the plaintiff’s recovery, and must be one of the following causes of action against the plaintiff: * * * (1) A cause of action arising out of the contract or transaction • set forth in the complaint as the foundation of the plaintiff’s claim, or connected with the subject of the action.”

*751Argued before Dykman and Pratt, JJ.

*■ Franklin Bien,*for appellant. *Remsen & Parsons, (Daniel Si Remsen,*of counsel,) for respondent.

Pratt, J.

The case of *People*v. *Dennison,*84 N. Y. 272, is conclusive in support of the decision below. The plaintiff’s cause of action is based upon the wrongful arrest. The cause of action stated in the counter-claim is based on contract, and cannot be availed of in this suit. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
#### Hill *v.*Egglestone.

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

May 2, 1890.)

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.