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

<ARTICLE>           5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
condensed consolidated financial statements included herein and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                                  <C>
<MULTIPLIER>      1
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                        3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                    SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                         MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                                 7,081,155
<SECURITIES>                                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            183,271
<ALLOWANCES>                                                  57
<INVENTORY>                                            4,121,376
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      11,718,533
<PP&E>                                                 4,659,874
<DEPRECIATION>                                        (1,482,474)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        16,659,491
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                  2,173,442
<BONDS>                                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                          0
<PREFERRED>                                                2,143
<COMMON>                                                  40,372
<OTHER-SE>                                            13,648,983
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          16,659,491
<SALES>                                                  182,057
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         253,872
<CGS>                                                    168,664
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          2,853,990
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                          97,464
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                          (545)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       (2,248,502)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   (2,248,502)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                0
<CHANGES>                                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                          (2,248,502)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                               (.67)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                  0
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          31,822
<SECURITIES>                                    12,469
<RECEIVABLES>                                   26,371
<ALLOWANCES>                                       577
<INVENTORY>                                    112,432
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               194,553
<PP&E>                                          47,137
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,570
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 246,662
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           28,955
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           399
<OTHER-SE>                                     207,681
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   246,662
<SALES>                                         98,631
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                98,631
<CGS>                                           70,314
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   70,314
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 229
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 12,243
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,346
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              9,897
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,897
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.25
        

</TABLE>
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6540 

To require the Secretary of Defense, in awarding a contract for the KC– 

X Aerial Refueling Aircraft Program, to consider any unfair competitive 

advantage that an offeror may possess. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 17, 2010 

Mr. INSLEE (for himself, Mr. LARSEN of Washington, Mr. MORAN of Kansas, 

Mr. TIAHRT, Mr. BLUNT, and Mr. MCDERMOTT) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of Defense, in awarding a contract 

for the KC–X Aerial Refueling Aircraft Program, to 

consider any unfair competitive advantage that an offeror 

may possess. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Defense Level Playing 

5 Field Act’’. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 6540 IH

1 SEC. 2. CONSIDERATION OF UNFAIR COMPETITIVE ADVAN2 TAGE IN EVALUATION OF OFFERS FOR KC–X 

3 AERIAL REFUELING AIRCRAFT PROGRAM. 

4 (a) REQUIREMENT TO CONSIDER UNFAIR COMPETI5 TIVE ADVANTAGE.—In awarding a contract for the KC– 

6 X aerial refueling aircraft program (or any successor to 

7 that program), the Secretary of Defense shall, in evalu8 ating any offers submitted to the Department of Defense 

9 in response to a solicitation for offers for such program, 

10 consider any unfair competitive advantage that an offeror 

11 may possess. 

12 (b) REPORT.—Not later than 60 days after submis13 sion of offers in response to any such solicitation, the Sec14 retary of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense 

15 committees a report on any unfair competitive advantage 

16 that any offeror may possess. 

17 (c) REQUIREMENT TO TAKE FINDINGS INTO AC18 COUNT IN AWARD OF CONTRACT.—In awarding a contract 

19 for the KC–X aerial refueling aircraft program (or any 

20 successor to that program), the Secretary of Defense shall 

21 take into account the findings of the report submitted 

22 under subsection (b). 

23 (d) UNFAIR COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE.—In this sec24 tion, the term ‘‘unfair competitive advantage’’, with re25 spect to an offer for a contract, means a situation in which 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with BILLS

3 

•HR 6540 IH

1 the cost of development, production, or manufacturing is 

2 not fully borne by the offeror for such contract. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Consolidated
Capital Growth Fund 1996 Year-End 10-KSB and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such 10-KSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000201529
<NAME> CONSOLIDATED CAPITAL GROWTH FUND
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           7,763
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       46
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          41,105
<DEPRECIATION>                                (20,683)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  30,422
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                         30,690
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1,208)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    30,422
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                11,313
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,202
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,884
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (119)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       992
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    19.96<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
<F2>Multiplier is 1.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 29, 2019

No. 04-18-00849-CV

Craig Erich HEILMANN,

Appellant

v.

Deanna Rae HEILMANN,

Appellee

From the 166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2000-CI-02542

Honorable Laura Salinas, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The unopposed supplemental motion to extend time to hold hearing filed by Judge John 

Gabriel is hereby GRANTED. Time is extended to May 8, 2019.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

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

court on this 29th day of March, 2019.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the previously filed Registration Statements on Form S-8 of Viryanet Ltd. (the
Company) of our independent auditors report dated February 17, 2004, relating to the consolidated financial statements of Viryanet Ltd. appearing in the Companys Annual Report on Form 20-F/A for the year ended December 31,
2003.



|                 |  |                                 
|---------------- |  | --------------------------------
|Tel-Aviv, Israel |  | KOST, FORER GABBAY and KASIERER 
|August 5, 2004   |  | A Member of Ernst & Young Global
# CE2010087EN.01019001.xml

| 1.4.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 87/190 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.4.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 87/190

---

Tuesday 10 March 2009Type-approval requirements for the general safety of motor vehicles ***I

P6_TA(2009)0092

European Parliament legislative resolution of 10 March 2009 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning type-approval requirements for the general safety of motor vehicles (COM(2008)0316 – C6-0210/2008 – 2008/0100(COD))

2010/C 87 E/44

(Codecision procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament,

having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2008)0316),

having regard to Article 251(2) and Article 95 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C6-0210/2008),

having regard to Rule 51 of its Rules of Procedure,

having regard to the report of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection and the opinion of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (A6-0482/2008),

| 1. | Approves the Commission proposal as amended; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Approves the Commission proposal as amended;

| 2. | Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend the proposal substantially or replace it with another text; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend the proposal substantially or replace it with another text;

| 3. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and Commission. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and Commission.

---

Tuesday 10 March 2009P6_TC1-COD(2008)0100

Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 10 March 2009 with a view to the adoption of Regulation (EC) No .../2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning type-approval requirements for the general safety of motor vehicles, their trailers and systems, components and separate technical units intended therefor

(As an agreement was reached between Parliament and Council, Parliament's position at first reading corresponds to the final legislative act, Regulation (EC) No 661/2009.)

---
#### Maureen McDonald, Individually and as Parent and Natural Guardian of Mark McDonald, an Infant, Respondent, v Huntington Crescent Club, Inc., et al., Appellants.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants separately appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Tanenbaum, J.), entered December 11, 1987, which denied their respective motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof which denied the motion of the defendant Huntington Crescent Club, Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against it, and substituting therefor a provision granting that motion; as *544so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The plaintiff, Mark McDonald, 16 years of age at the time of this incident, while working as a caddy at the golf course of the defendant Huntington Crescent Club, Inc. (hereinafter the Club), was hit in the head by a golf ball driven by the defendant Fioretti.

The plaintiffs’ contention that the defendant Club’s alleged failure to properly instruct Mark McDonald regarding safety on a golf course raises a triable issue as to its negligence is without merit. The plaintiff Mark McDonald admits that he had caddied over 200 times on the same golf course. Thus, his general knowledge of the golf course, the game of golf and plain common sense should have made him aware that if a golf ball was hit in his direction, he should take evasive action. Therefore, the Club’s alleged failure to instruct him is irrelevant to the issues in this case.

We also disagree with the plaintiffs’ contention that the Club owed Mark McDonald a duty of constructing near the fairway barriers in order to protect caddies from golf balls headed in their direction. The duty of the Club is to exercise that degree of care that a reasonable prudent golf club would have exercised under similar circumstances. Under the facts of this case, the plaintiffs have failed to establish the breach of any duty on the part of the Club. Accordingly, its motion is granted.

With regard, however, to the defendant Fioretti, we find Supreme Court was correct in denying his motion for summary judgment. A golfer has a duty to give a timely warning to other persons within a foreseeable ambit of danger *(see, Jenks v McGranaghan,*30 NY2d 475), and that duty extends to those in or near the intended line of flight *(see, Jenks v McGranaghan, supra,*at 475; *Jackson v Livingston Country Club,*55 AD2d 1045; *cf, Noe v Park Country Club,*115 AD2d 230). It is uncontested that the plaintiff Mark McDonald was standing near the intended line of flight and there are contradictory affidavits as to whether the defendant Fioretti called out "fore”. Hence, summary judgment is precluded as to the defendant Fioretti as there are issues of fact which can only be determined by the trier of the facts. Bracken, J. P., Rubin, Spatt and Sullivan, JJ., concur.
**** 

EXHIBIT 21

 

ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC.

 

LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

 

Graybar International, Inc., a Missouri corporation

 

Graybar Financial Services, Inc., a Missouri corporation

 

Graybar Electric Limited, a Nova Scotia corporation

 

Graybar Canada Limited, a Nova Scotia corporation

 

Graybar Services, Inc., an Illinois corporation

 

Distribution Associates, Inc., a Missouri corporation

 

Graybar Business Services, Inc., a Missouri corporation

 

Graybar Electric Canada Limited, a Nova Scotia corporation

 

Graybar Commerce Corporation, a Delaware corporation

 

Commonwealth Controls Corporation, a Missouri corporation

 

Graybar Newfoundland Limited, a Newfoundland and Labrador corporation

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

<ARTICLE>        5
<MULTIPLIER>     1,000

<CAPTION>
                     EXHIBIT 27 - FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE
Article 5

The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Monarch
Services, Inc.'s audited financial statements for the Fiscal Year ended April
30, 1999, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements and the notes thereto.

<S>                                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                 Apr-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                    May-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                      Apr-30-1999
<CASH>                                                  7,321
<SECURITIES>                                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                                             429
<ALLOWANCES>                                              142
<INVENTORY>                                               240
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                        8,000
<PP&E>                                                  4,014
<DEPRECIATION>                                          3,690
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                          8,494
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                   1,751
<BONDS>                                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                       0
<PREFERRED>                                                 0
<COMMON>                                                  527
<OTHER-SE>                                              3,256
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                            8,494
<SALES>                                                 5,827
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                        6,034
<CGS>                                                   4,704
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                           6,048
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                          0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                           (14)
<INCOME-TAX>                                               79
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                        65
<DISCONTINUED>                                          3,448
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                             0
<CHANGES>                                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                            3,513
<EPS-BASIC>                                            2.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            2.17


</TABLE>
#### KREIN v. UNITED STATES.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

July 29, 1922.)

No. 6044.

Criminal law <®=»l 147—Trial court’s exercise of discretion In imposing sentence of imprisonment not reviewable on writ of error.

In prosecution for violation of Act Feb. 4, 1SS7. to regulate commerce, the action of the court in imposing, in its discretion, a sentence of imprisonment, is not reviewable by the Circuit Court of Appeals on writ of error.

In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Iowa; Martin J. Wade, Judge.

Theodore W. Krein was convicted of violating the Act to Regulate Commerce, and brings error.

Affirmed.

*624Joe R. Lane and C. M. Waterman, both of Davenport, Iowa, for plaintiff in error.

E. G. Moon, U. S. Atty., of Ottumwa, Iowa, and R. Granville Curry, of Washington, D. C., for the United States.

Before CARLAND, Circuit Judge, and TRIEBER and MUNGER, District Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error was jointly indicted with the Muscatine, Burlington & Southern Railroad Company for a violation of the Act to Regulate Commerce. 24 Stat. 379. Both defendants pleaded guilty to three counts of the indictment. The railroad company was fined $1,000 on each of the three counts, and ordered to pay one-half of the costs of the prosecution. Plaintiff in error was fined the sum of $1,000 on each of said counts, and ordered to be imprisoned in the United States penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kan., for a period of one year and one day on each of said counts, the terms of imprisonment to run concurrently.

The fines imposed were the minimum fines provided by law; so was the term of imprisonment. It is assigned as error that the court below abused its discretion in imposing a sentence of imprisonment on plaintiff in error. The record presents nothing that this court can review. Goldberg v. U. S. (C. C. A.) *277*Fed. 211, 220.

Judgment affirmed.

<§=^For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in -all Key-Numbered Digests *&*Indexes
#### SHERMAN, Respondent, v. ROBERTSON, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Fifth Department.

June 20, 1894.)

Action by Walter H. Sherman against Julius Robertson.

No opinion. Order-appealed from affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
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 Annual Report of China Natural Gas, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Qinan
Ji, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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.





Date: August 19,
2010


/s/
      Qinan JiQinan
      Ji, Principal Executive Officer
**Exhibit 23(ii)****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We consentto the incorporation by reference of the following two reports intoAmerican Oil & Gas Inc.’s previously filed Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-121941) andRegistration Statements on Form S-3 (No. 333-128812,No. 333-120987 and No. 333-139648.): **•** Our report dated April 2, 2007 on the December 31, 2006 and December 31, 2005consolidated financial statements of American Oil and Gas, Inc. (“American”) and **•** Our report dated April 2, 2007 on American management’s assessment of the effectivenessof internal control over American financial reporting as ofDecember 31, 2006 and on the effectiveness of internal controlover American financial reporting as of December 31, 2006,whichreports appear in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for American for the year ended December 31, 2006.Hein & Associates LLPDenver, Colorado