alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
HYNES & HOWES INSURANCE COUNSELORS, INC.
                          Notes to Financial Statements
                           September 30, 1998 and 1997



Note 1.  Summary of Significant Accounting Policies:

         Accounting policies adopted by Hynes & Howes Insurance Counselors, Inc.
         conform to generally accepted accounting principles.  Policies
         considered significant are briefly described below:

         Investment in Affiliated Companies - The Company used the equity method
         of accounting for investments in affiliated companies, although the
         stock holdings are below the 20% level of ownership, the control that
         was exercised by common officers and directors warranted this adoption.

         Investment in Contracts Receivable - Investments in Contracts
         Receivable are stated at the collectible balance of the contracts.
         When assets were sold on contract the gains on the sales were
         recognized in the year of the sale.

         Earnings Per Share - Earnings per share are computed on the basis of
         the weighted average number of common shares outstanding.  There were
         no common stock equivalents outstanding during the years ended
         September 30, 1998, 1997 and 1996.
#### Two Catherine Street Management Co., Inc., Respondent, v Yam Keung Yeung, Also Known as Roger Young, Appellant.

In an action, *inter alia,*to recover damages for the breach of a commercial lease, the defendant Yam Cheung Yeung, sued herein as Yam Keung Yeung, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Benson, J.), entered June 6, 1988, which denied his motion to vacate a judgment entered against him upon his default.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law and the facts, with costs, the motion is granted, and the default judgment is vacated.

We find that the motion to vacate the default judgment should have been granted. Regardless of the manner in which service was effected, the defendant demonstrated a reasonable excuse for any delay in appearing and a meritorious defense to the action *(see,*CPLR 317, 5015).

If service were made by personal delivery *(see,*CPLR 308 [1] ), then the notice of appearance was only four days late. Under the circumstances, such a short period of delay should not preclude a defense on the merits especially as the plaintiff has not claimed any prejudice *(see, Mulder v Rockland Armor & Metal Corp.,*140 AD2d 315). Further, the discrepancies between the name on the summons and the proper name of the defendant were sufficient to qualify as a reasonable excuse for the delay.

If service were made by substituted service *(see,*CPLR 308 [2] ), then the notice of appearance was timely served and no default occurred. Indeed, even if there had then been a failure on the part of the defendant to timely appear, it would only have been necessary to show that the proper party did not receive notice of the action in time to defend and that he had a meritorious defense *(see,*CPLR 317).

In any event, we find that a meritorious defense to the action was demonstrated. The lease contemplated that certain *679changes in the premises were necessary so that the premises could be used for the purposes intended, that is, as a restaurant and that such changes must comply with the relevant rules and regulations. It was alleged that it became impossible to make the changes through no fault of either party due to the inactivity of the local building department with respect to the defendant’s applications.

Since the intended purpose of the lease may have become impossible to effectuate through no fault of the defendant tenant, he may have been entitled to terminate the lease *(see, Elkar Realty Corp. v Kamada,*6 AD2d 155, *lv dismissed*5 NY2d 844; *Benderson Dev. Co. v Commenco Corp.,*44 AD2d 889, *affd*37 NY2d 728). Bracken, J. R, Kunzeman, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.
exv10w9







Exhibit 10.9




DIRECTOR COMPENSATION



Our directors, including our directors who are named executive officers, are paid $1,000 for each
Board meeting attended. We reimburse our directors for reasonable travel and lodging expenses
incurred in attending meetings.




46
- Home

# Arrest Summary Report

**United States Capitol Police Arrest Summary Report*To request a public document, contact the USCP Reports Processing Section at (202) 228-4585.***

USCP Report Request Form 2019.pdf

- First page« First
- Previous page‹ Previous
-               Page            1
-               Current page            2
-               Page            3
-               Page            4
-               Page            5
-               Page            6
-               Page            7
-               Page            8
-               Page            9
- …
- Next pageNext ›
- Last pageLast »

## Media Center

              - Press Releases
              - USCP Arrests
              - USCP FAST FACTS

## Glossary

                - R/O = Reporting/Responding Officer
                - SFST = Standardized Field Sobriety Test
                - W = Witness
                - S = Suspect
                - SA = Special Agent
                - CIS = Criminal Investigations Section
                - CSS = Crime Scene Search
                - C = Complainant
                - LPR = License Plate Number
                - CFN = Capitol File Number
                - Unless otherwise noted, Defendants placed under arrest are transported to USCP Headquarters, 119 D Street, NE, for processing.
**Exhibit
      32.2**


**Clickable
      Enterprises, Inc.**


**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 Clickable Enterprises, Inc. (the
        "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with
        the
        Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
        Guy
        Pipolo, Chief Financial 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)
        The
        Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
        the
        Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 
 (2)
        The
        information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
        the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 This
        Certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
        Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed “filed” by the Company for
        purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
        amended.
 *Date:
                  August 30, 2007*
                
                */s/
                  Guy Pipolo*
                *----------------------*
                *Guy
                  Pipolo*
                *Chief
                  Financial Officer (Principal Accounting Officer)*
 A
        signed
        original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
        to
        the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
        and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
 
 23
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-30101

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSHUA FINLEY,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:17-CR-29-1

Before JONES, DUNCAN, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Joshua Finley has 

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th 

Cir. 2011). Finley has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief 

and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with 

counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 4, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-30101 Document: 00514668409 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/04/2018
No. 18-30101

2

appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is 

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the 

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 18-30101 Document: 00514668409 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/04/2018
La calefacción y la seguridad 

contra incendios

Siga estas recomendaciones sobre calefacción para mantener un hogar seguro durante el invierno.

Calentador ambiental

ĵ No coloque nada que pueda quemarse como ropa de cama, ropa y cortinas a menos de 

3 pies del calentador.

ĵ Asegúrese de que el calentador tenga un sistema de apagado automático de modo que 

si se vuelca, se apague.

ĵ Apague los calentadores cuando se vaya a la cama o salga de la habitación.

ĵ Enchufe los calentadores ambientales portátiles directamente al tomacorriente de la 

pared y nunca a una extensión eléctrica o regleta.

ĵ Solo utilice calentadores portátiles de un laboratorio de pruebas reconocido.

Chimenea

ĵ Coloque una pantalla de metal o de vidrio delante de la chimenea para evitar que salten 

brasas o chispas.

ĵ No queme papel en la chimenea.

ĵ Apague el fuego de la chimenea antes se va a dormir o sale del hogar.

ĵ Coloque las cenizas en un contenedor de metal con tapa, afuera del hogar y al menos a 

10 pies de distancia.

Estufa de leña

ĵ Asegúrese de que la estufa de leña esté a 3 pies de cualquier cosa que pueda quemarse.

ĵ No queme papel en la estufa de leña.

ĵ Apague el fuego de la estufa de leña antes se va a dormir o sale del hogar.

ĵ Una vez por año, haga inspeccionar y limpiar la chimenea por un profesional.

Horno

ĵ Una vez por año, 

haga inspeccionar el 

horno.

ĵ Aleje del horno 

todo lo quepueda 

quemarse.

Calentador de queroseno

ĵ Solo utilice calentadores de queroseno de un 

laboratorio de pruebas reconocido.

ĵ Asegúrese de que el calentador tenga un sistema 

de apagado automático de modo que si se vuelca, 

se apague.

ĵ Reabastezca los calentadores cuando estén fríos y 

en el exterior.

Para 

obtener más 

información 

y recursos 

gratuitos, visite 

usfa.fema.gov.
##### 



Exhibit 20.1
 Map of the Companys Parcels in
Downtown Providence, Rhode Island
  Parcel No.
    
    Square FeetCapital
    
    Parcel Size
    
    Development on ParcelsCenter2
    
    
    92,000
    
    
    17 and 19 Story Condo Buildings under construction -
307,000 gross square feet3S
    
    
    48,000
    
    
    13 Story Office Building  235,000 gross square feet3W
    
    
    35,0003E
    
    
    24,0004W
    
    
    46,0004E
    
    
    22,0005
    
    
    54,000
    
    
    8 Story Luxury Apartment Building
 454,000 gross square feet6
    
    
    276,0007A
    
    
    76,000
    
    
    330 Car Public Parking Garage8
    
    
    36,000
    
    
    4 Story Office Building 
114,000 gross square feet9
    
    
    72,000
    
    
    10 Story Office Building under construction 
210,000 gross square feetOutsideCapitalCenter20
    
    
    20,500
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6323

LOUIS C. JOHNSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versusFREDERICK GREEN, Warden, Brunswick Correctional Center; JAMES S. GILMORE, III, Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Virginia, Respondents - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-97-264) Submitted: November 19, 1998 Decided: December 1, 1998 Before HAMILTON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edwin Frederick Brooks, JACKSON, PICKUS & ASSOCIATES, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Linwood Theodore Wells, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Johnson filed the subject petition on April 11, 1997, within the one-year limitations period of 28 U.S.C.A. § 2244(d) (West Supp. 1998). See Brown v. Angelone , 150 F.3d 370, 375 (4th Cir. 1998). 2 PER CURIAM: Louis C. Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Johnson v. Green, No. CA-97-264 (E.D. Va. Feb. 5, 1998). * We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Order filed, February 17, 2017.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-16-01025-CV

____________

LISA SLATER, Appellant

V.

AMERIGROUP MORTGAGE CORPORATION, GMAC MORTGAGE, 

LLC, PLANET HOME LENDING, LLC, THE SECRETARY OF 

VETERAN'S AFFAIRS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 125th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2016-12085

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due January 30, 2017. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the 

record. The record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record 

has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Kendra Garcia, the official court reporter, to file the record in 

this appeal within 30 days of the date of this order. 

PER CURIAM
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

December 28, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
134410 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 134410 COA: 275787 Kent CC: 91-057087-FC JOHN WILLIAM EFFINGER, III, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 4, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishing ent itlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

s1217 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 28, 2007

Clerk
#### TOMPKINS v. TOMPKINS et al.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.

May 14, 1894.)

Assumpsit—Evidence under General Denial.

In an action for money alleged to have been loaned by plaintiff to defendants, evidence that the money was given to defendants under an agreement by which they were to take care of plaintiff is admissible under a general denial.

Appeal from circuit court, Westchester county.

Action by Hester A. Tompkins against William H. Tompkins and another to recover money alleged to have been loaned by plaintiff to defendants. From a judgment entered on a verdict in favor of plaintiff, defendants appeal. Reversed.

Argued before BROWN, P. J., and PRATT, J.

Francis Larkin, for appellants.

William P. Fiero, for respondent.

BROWN, P. J.

The complaint in this action set forth as a cause of action a loan of a sum of money by the plaintiff to the defendants, and nonpayment thereof after demand. The answer was a general denial of the complaint, except as to the allegation of demand and nonpayment. Upon the trial, upon cross-examination of the plaintiff, and upon the direct examination of the defendants, questions were asked for the purpose of showing that the money was given to the defendants under an agreement, by which they were to board and take care of the plaintiff and her sister, who were respectively the mother and aunt of the defendant William H. Tomp*904kins. This evidence was excluded upon plaintiff’s objection, on the ground that it was inadmissible under the pleadings, and the exception to this ruling presents the question upon this appeal. Under a general denial the defendant may contradict any evidence given by the plaintiff in support of the cause of action alleged in the complaint. Milbank v. Jones, 141 N. Y. 340, 36 N. E. 388, and cases cited; Roemer v. Striker, 142 N. Y. 134, 36 N. E. 808. He is not confined to a simple denial of the facts testified to on behalf of the plaintiff, but he may introduce any evidence which tends to show the transaction between the parties to be different from what the plaintiff claims it to be. The plaintiff alleged and testified that the transaction with the defendants was a loan of money. Under a general denial, defendants were entitled to show the agreement under which they claimed to have received it. The cases cited by the respondent have no application. Bassett v. Lederer, 1 Hun, 274, and McKyring v. Bull, 16 N. Y. 297, were cases where defendants sought to prove payment under a general denial. This defense must always be pleaded. Lent v. Railroad Co., 130 N. Y. 504-511, 29 N. E. 988. Weaver v. Barden, 49 N. Y. 294, was an action to compel the transfer of stock to the plaintiff. The court held that under a general denial defendant could not prove he was a bona fide purchaser of the stock, for the reason that that fact had no tendency to contradict anything which plaintiff was bound to prove to sustain Ms case. These cases do not conflict with the rule here applied. The judgment must be reversed, and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF PRINTPACK, INC. FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 28, 1997 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-28-1997                      
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-30-1996         
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-28-1997         
<CASH>                                           1,140
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   76,927
<ALLOWANCES>                                       852
<INVENTORY>                                     90,074
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               201,473
<PP&E>                                         552,501
<DEPRECIATION>                                (199,407)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 650,510
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          (94,737)
<BONDS>                                       (472,384)
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        (1,011)
<OTHER-SE>                                      (2,531)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  (650,510)
<SALES>                                        782,443
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               782,443
<CGS>                                          672,669
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  679,965
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                71,969
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   566
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              46,600
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (16,657)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (2,096)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (14,561)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 (1,631)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (16,192)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (3.84)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (3.84)
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6237 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6237

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 1351 2nd Street in Napa, California, as the ``Tom Kongsgaard Post 
                           Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 28, 2010

  Mr. Thompson of California (for himself, Mr. Baca, Mr. Becerra, Mr. 
 Berman, Mr. Bilbray, Mrs. Bono Mack, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Campbell, Mrs. 
 Capps, Mr. Cardoza, Ms. Chu, Mr. Costa, Mrs. Davis of California, Mr. 
 Dreier, Ms. Eshoo, Mr. Farr, Mr. Filner, Mr. Gallegly, Mr. Garamendi, 
  Ms. Harman, Mr. Herger, Mr. Honda, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Issa, Ms. Lee of 
California, Mr. Lewis of California, Ms. Zoe Lofgren of California, Mr. 
 Daniel E. Lungren of California, Mr. McKeon, Ms. Matsui, Mr. McCarthy 
  of California, Mr. McClintock, Mr. McNerney, Mr. Gary G. Miller of 
   California, Mr. George Miller of California, Mrs. Napolitano, Mr. 
  Radanovich, Ms. Richardson, Mr. Rohrabacher, Ms. Roybal-Allard, Mr. 
   Royce, Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of California, Ms. Loretta Sanchez of 
California, Mr. Schiff, Mr. Sherman, Ms. Speier, Mr. Stark, Ms. Waters, 
    Ms. Watson, Mr. Waxman, Ms. Woolsey, Mr. Nunes, and Ms. Pelosi) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                    Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 1351 2nd Street in Napa, California, as the ``Tom Kongsgaard Post 
                           Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. TOM KONGSGAARD POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 867 Stockton Street in San Francisco, California, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Tom Kongsgaard Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Tom 
Kongsgaard Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```