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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FOR CHARTER MUNICIPAL MORTGAGE ACCEPTANCE COMPANY AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001043325
<NAME> CHARTER MUNICIPAL MORTGAGE ACCEPTANCE COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                      16,914,665
<SECURITIES>                               625,885,000
<RECEIVABLES>                               13,218,371
<ALLOWANCES>                                   138,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               265,049
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             673,168,933
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       91,434,548
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                 314,734,385
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               673,168,933
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            12,050,969
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,566,305
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             914,275
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              6,570,389
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 6,570,389
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .29


</TABLE>
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T HU MB E R T O B E C E R R A, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 08- 75122 A ge nc yN o. A 075- 499- 740 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o a r do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d J anua ry10, 2011 ** B efo re: B E E Z E R , T A L L M A N , an dC A L L A H A N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. H um be rt o B e c e rr a , ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of M e xi c o, pe t i t i ons f

orr e vi e w of th e B o ar do f I m m ig ra ti o n A p p ea ls’ (“B IA ”) o rd ersu stain in g th e g o v ern m en t’ s appe a l f r om a n i m m i gr a t i on j udge ’ s de c i s i on gr ant i ng hi s appl i c a t i on f or cancel l at i on of re m ov al . W e have j uri sdi ct i on un der 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2. W e r evi ew 

# FI LED JAN 20 2 011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 75122 2 d e n o v o q u e s tio n s o f

law , Mercado -Zazueta v. H older , 5 8 0 F .3 d1 1 0 2 , 1 1 0 4 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 0 9 ) , a n dwe g r a n tth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. T h e B I A r e

je c te dB e c e rr a ’s c o n te n tio n th a t h e w a s e n title dto im p u te h is m othe r ’ s a dm i s s i on a s al a w f ul pe rm ane ntr e s i de nti n or de rt o s a t i s f ythe s e ve ny e a rp e r io do f

c o n tin u o u s r e s id e n c e r e q u ir e df o rc an c e lla tio n o f

r e m o v a l. See 8 U . S . C . § 1229b( a ) ( 2) . H ow e ve r , the B I A di d notha ve the be ne f i tof ourde c i s i on i n Me r c a do - Za z u e ta , 580 F . 3d a t1113- 16, i n w hi c h w e r e c ogni z e d the ongoi ng val i di ty of C uevas- G aspa r v . G on zales , 4 3 0 F .3 d1 0 1 3 (9 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ) ( a p ar en t’ s a dm i s s i on f

orpe rm a ne ntr e s i de nc e i s i m put e d t o une m anc i pa t e d m i nor chi l dren r e s i di ng w i th the pa r e ntf orthe purpos e of

s a t i s f y i ng the r e qui r e d pe r i od of c ont i nuous r e s i de nc e unde r8 U . S . C . § 1229b( a ) ( 2) ) . W e the r e f or e r e m and t o the B I A to r e c o n s id e rB e c e rr a ’s ap p e a l. P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W GR AN T E D; RE MAND E D.
# C_2021006EN.01001301.xml

| 8.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/13

---

Summary of European Union decisions on marketing authorisations in respect of medicinal products from 6 January 2021 to 6 January 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 6/11)

| — | 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 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 6.1.2021 | COVID-19 Vaccine Moderna | COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine (nucleoside modified) | MODERNA BIOTECH SPAIN, S.L. Calle Monte Esquinza 30, 28010 Madrid, España | EU/1/20/1507 | dispersion for injection | J07BX | 6.1.2021 |

—

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

6.1.2021

COVID-19 Vaccine Moderna

COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine (nucleoside modified)

MODERNA BIOTECH SPAIN, S.L. Calle Monte Esquinza 30, 28010 Madrid, España

EU/1/20/1507

dispersion for injection

J07BX

6.1.2021

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.

---
#### Kevin KASTEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE PLASTICS CORP., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 08-2820.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

May 26, 2011.

James H. Raster, Minneapolis, MN, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Anthony J. Sievert, Attorney, Whyte, Hirschboeck *&*Dudek S.C., Madison, WI, Thomas P. Godar, Attorney, Michael Best & Friedrich, Milwaukee, WI, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge, JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge, FREDERICK J. KAPALA, District Judge.*

*

 The Honorable Frederick J. Kapala, of the United Stated District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.

ORDER

On March 22, 2011, the Supreme Court reversed our decision in this case and remanded the matter for proceedings in conformity with its opinion. *Kasten v. SaintGobain Performance Plastics Corp.,*— U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 1325, 179 L.Ed.2d 379 (2011). In light of that opinion — -concluding that oral complaints fall within the scope of the phrase “filed any complaint” in 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3) — it is ORDERED that this case be remanded to the district court for further proceedings pertaining to Kasten’s antiretaliation claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
exv10w3wb






Exhibit
10.3(b)



June 9,
2009 

Willowbridge Associates Inc.

101 Morgan Lane — Suite 180

Plainsboro, N.J. 08536




Attention: Mr Steve R. Crane




     Re: Management Agreement Renewals



Dear Mr. Crane:




We are writing with respect to your management agreements concerning the commodity pools to which
reference is made below (the “Management Agreements”). We are extending the term of the Management
Agreements through June 30, 2010 and all other provisions of the Management Agreements will remain
unchanged.





	 	•	 	Smith Barney Diversified Futures Fund L.P.
	 
	 	•	 	Smith Barney Diversified Futures Fund L.P. II
	 
	 	•	 	Citigroup Orion Futures Fund L.P.
	 
	 	•	 	Citigroup Diversified Futures Fund L.P.
	 
	 	•	 	CMF Institutional Futures Portfolio LP
	 
	 	•	 	CMF Willowbridge Argo Master Fund L.P.
	 
	 	•	 	Citigroup Orion  Futures Fund (Cayman) Ltd.





Please acknowledge receipt of this modification by signing one copy of this letter and returning it
to the attention of Ms. Jennifer Magro at the address above or fax to 212-793-1986. If you have any
questions I can be reached at 212-559-5046.




	 	 	 	 	 
	Very truly yours,	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	CITIGROUP MANAGED FUTURES LLC	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	/s/ Jennifer Magro	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Jennifer Magro	 	 
	 

	 	Chief Financial Officer & Director	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	WILLOWBRIDGE ASOCIATES INC.	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	/s/ Steven Crane	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Print Name: Steven Crane	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	JM/sr
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 of eLinear, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB  for  the  quarter  ended  June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kevan M. Casey, Chief
Executive  Officer  and  Principal  Accounting  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  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge:

(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.



/s/  Kevan  M.  Casey
-----------------------------------
Kevan  M.  Casey,
Chief  Executive  Officer  and
Principal  Accounting  Officer
August  21,  2003


     A  signed  original  of  this written statement required by Section 906 has
been  provided  to  eLinear,  Inc.  and  will  be  retained by eLinear, Inc. and
furnished  to  the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


<PAGE>
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 26, 2022

No. 04-21-00518-CV

BULVERDE VILLAGE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION,

Appellant

v.

BULVERDE VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. a/k/a The Point,

Appellee

From the 288th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020CI03243

Honorable Laura Salinas, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s reply brief is due on September 6, 2022. However, the appellant has filed a 

motion requesting an extension of time to file its reply brief. The motion is GRANTED. The 

appellant’s reply brief is due on or before September 16, 2022.

_________________________________

Irene Rios, Justice

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

court on this 26th day of August, 2022.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court

FILE COPY
#### Broyles & Broyles, Inc., Respondent, v Rainbow Square, Ltd., et al., Appellants.

— Order unanimously modified, on the law, and, as modified, affirmed, without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: We agree with *934the denial of defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action (CPLR 3211 [a] [7]) for reasons stated at Special Term. However, we reverse Special Term’s order insofar as it directs defendant to produce Bennett J. Halpern for a deposition upon oral questions.

This is an action for breach of contract and for the reasonable value of work, labor and services performed by plaintiff for defendant in connection with the design and construction of a mechanical and heating ventilation and air-conditioning (HVAC) system for the Rainbow Centre Mall in Niagara Falls, New York. The record shows that defendant sought Halpern’s advice on corrective measures in the HVAC system to reduce energy consumption. We agree that his work product was not performed in preparation for litigation and thus is not privileged. However, defendant cannot be compelled to produce Halpern for deposition since he is not its agent nor within its control. Agency is a fiduciary relationship "which results from a manifestation of consent by one person to another that the other shall act on his behalf and subject to his control, and the consent by the other to act * * * It is a relationship whereby 'one retains a degree of direction and control over another’ ” *(Meese v Miller,*79 AD2d 237, 241). There is no proof that defendant retained control over Halpern when he performed his energy analysis and, since there is no showing that he is an agent of defendant, his examination could not be directed under CPLR 3101 (a) (1) *(see, Ludden v Erie Lackawanna Ry. Co.,*38 AD2d 783). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Doyle, J. — discovery.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Green, Lawton and Schnepp, JJ.
IB 

Union Calendar No. 451 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2589 

[Report No. 114–581] 

To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to require the Federal Communications Commission to publish on its Internet website changes to the 

rules of the Commission not later than 24 hours after adoption. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 1, 2015 

Mrs. ELLMERS of North Carolina introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

MAY 23, 2016 

Additional sponsors: Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois, Mr. CRAMER, Mr. LANCE, Mr. 

POMPEO, Mr. LONG, and Mr. STEWART

MAY 23, 2016 

Reported with amendments, committed to the Committee of the Whole House 

on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed 

[Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic] 

[For text of introduced bill, see copy of bill as introduced on June 1, 2015] 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2589 RH

A BILL 

To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to require the 

Federal Communications Commission to publish on its 

Internet website changes to the rules of the Commission 

not later than 24 hours after adoption. 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2589 RH

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. TIMELY AVAILABILITY OF ITEMS ADOPTED BY 

4 VOTE OF THE COMMISSION. 

5 (a) AMENDMENT.—Section 4 of the Communications 

6 Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 154) is amended by adding at the 

7 end the following: 

8 ‘‘(p) In the case of any item that is adopted by vote 

9 of the Commission, the Commission shall publish on the 

10 Internet website of the Commission the text of such item 

11 not later than 24 hours after the Secretary of the Commis12 sion has received dissenting statements from all Commis13 sioners wishing to submit such a statement with respect to 

14 such item.’’. 

15 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by this 

16 section shall apply with respect to an item that is adopted 

17 after the date that is 30 days after the date of the enactment 

18 of this Act. 

Amend the title so as to read: ‘‘A bill to amend the 

Communications Act of 1934 to require the Federal 

Communications Commission to publish on its Internet 

website the text of any item that is adopted by vote of 

the Commission not later than 24 hours after receipt of 

dissenting statements from all Commissioners wishing to 

submit such a statement with respect to such item.’’. 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with BILLS
Union Calendar No. 451 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2589 

[Report No. 114–581] 

A BILL 

To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to reafter adoption. rules of the Commission not later than 24 hours to publish on its Internet website changes to the quire the Federal Communications Commission 

MAY 23, 2016 

Reported with amendments, committed to the Committee 

dered to be printed of the Whole House on the State of the Union, and orVerDate Sep 11 2014 23:48 May 23, 2016 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6651 Sfmt 6651 E:\BILLS\H2589.RH H2589

emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Samuel Marshall, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Deeley, J.), rendered January 15, 1985, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and attempted robbery in the first degree under indictment No. 1820/84, upon a jury verdict and imposing sentence; and (2) a judgment of the same court, rendered January 31, 1985, convicting him of attempted robbery in the second degree, under indictment No. 6311/83, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. These appeals bring up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

The defendant was accused of holding a gun on Brenda Hopgood while his companion stole her purse and, in a separate incident, of beating Early Goldsberry during an attempt to rob him. Immediately after the attack, the police drove Goldsberry around the neighborhood. He identified the defendant, who was standing on a street corner, as his assailant. The defendant fled but was apprehended. After his arrest, the defendant was placed in two lineups as a suspect in cases *337unrelated to these incidents. Later that same evening, the defendant was used as a "filler” in separate lineups viewed by Brenda Hopgood and her sister Jennifer, who had witnessed the attack. Jennifer identified the defendant as the man who had held the gun. However, Brenda said she did not know if her assailant was the defendant or another person in the lineup.

At a *Wade*hearing, the defendant contended that the identifications should be suppressed because he was compelled to participate in the lineups without counsel even though the arresting officer knew he was represented by counsel on an unrelated case. According to the police, the defendant’s participation was voluntary. The hearing court’s denial of the suppression motion was proper. The police are permitted to use station house detainees as fillers *(see, People v Whitaker,*64 NY2d 347, *cert denied*— US —, 106 S Ct 95). Since these were investigatory lineups, under the circumstances, the defendant was not entitled to counsel nor were the police required to notify his counsel on an unrelated case *(see, People v Hawkins,*55 NY2d 474, *cert denied*459 US 846; *People v Marshall,*91 AD2d 643).

On appeal, the defendant argues that Brenda Hopgood’s identification testimony should have been suppressed because she was unable to positively identify the defendant. However, this argument was not raised at the suppression hearing, and defense counsel did not object to Brenda’s identification testimony at trial; therefore the issue has not been preserved for appellate review.

We find the trial court’s failure to charge the jury on the ambiguity of flight evidence to be harmless error under the circumstances of this case. Finally, the defendant’s contention that the prosecutor’s remarks on summation deprived him of a fair trial is without merit. Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Rubin and Spatt, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements of
Mpower Holding Corporation on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-112457 and 333-109998) and Form
S-8 (Nos. 333-111083, 333-110089, 333-106279, 333-97617) of our report dated
March 24, 2004 (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an
explanatory paragraph relating to the preparation of the consolidated financial
statements in conformity with AICPA Statement of Position 90-7, Financial
Reporting by Entities in Reorganization Under the Bankruptcy Code), appearing in
the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Mpower Holding Corporation for the year ended
December 31, 2003.

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Rochester, New York
March 30, 2004
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert Bonilla, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul Bookson, J.), rendered on February 11, 1985, unanimously affirmed.

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. *(See, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous points which could be raised on this appeal. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Sullivan, Milonas and Smith, JJ.
[ARTICLE] 5
<TABLE>
<S>                             <C>
[PERIOD-TYPE]                   3-MOS
[FISCAL-YEAR-END]                          SEP-30-2000
[PERIOD-END]                               MAR- 31-2000
[CASH]
[SECURITIES]
[RECEIVABLES]
[ALLOWANCES]
[INVENTORY]
[CURRENT-ASSETS]
[PP&E]
[DEPRECIATION]
[TOTAL-ASSETS]
[CURRENT-LIABILITIES]
[BONDS]
[PREFERRED-MANDATORY]
[PREFERRED]
[COMMON]
[OTHER-SE]
[TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY]
[SALES]
[TOTAL-REVENUES]
[CGS]
[TOTAL-COSTS]
[OTHER-EXPENSES]
[LOSS-PROVISION]
[INTEREST-EXPENSE]
[INCOME-PRETAX]
[INCOME-TAX]
[INCOME-CONTINUING]
[DISCONTINUED]
[EXTRAORDINARY]
[CHANGES]
[NET-INCOME]
[EPS-BASIC]
[EPS-DILUTED]
</TABLE>
#### Nolte, Respondent, *v.*Manhattan Ry. Co., Appellant.

*(Superior Court of New York City, General Term.*

June 27, 1890.)

Appeal from jury term.

Action by Albert Nolte against the Manhattan Railway Company.

Argued before Freedman and Truax, JJ.

*Davies & Rapallo,*for appellant. *Charles Steckler,*for respondent.

Freedman, J.

The record discloses no error which under all the circumstances constitutes ground for reversal, nor can it be held that the verdict is excessive. The judgment and order should be affirmed, with costs.