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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
AND THE NINE MONTHS THEN ENDED AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           3,845
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,150
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,861
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                11,806
<PP&E>                                           8,140
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,309
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  40,219
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,264
<BONDS>                                          3,144
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            1,550
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             6
<OTHER-SE>                                      25,071
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    40,219
<SALES>                                         22,426
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                22,426
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   10,628
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                20,049
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,589
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (179)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (68)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (3,195)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,263)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.8)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.91)



</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2







Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350.



In connection with the Quarterly Report of AT&S Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard G. Honan II, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.1350, that:



·

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



·

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



Dated:  August 12, 2005



//s// Richard G. Honan, II

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

Richard G. Honan, II

Chief Financial Officer
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4768 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on sandwich toaster grills. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 17, 2007 

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on sandwich 

toaster grills. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SANDWICH TOASTER GRILLS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.23.42 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended 

6 by striking ‘‘12/31/2009’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 

7 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

8 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or 

9 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

10 the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
Exhibit
32.2
 
 
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO
 18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,
 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2004
 
 In
connection with the Quarterly Report of GREEN ENERGY HOLDING CORP. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB/A, amendment number 1 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the "Report'), Robert A.
Hildebrand, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 USC
ss.1350, as adopted pursuant
to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2004, that to the best of my knowledge
and belief:
 
 (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:
      May 13, 2008
                  By:
                  /s/
      Robert A. HildebrandRobert A. Hildebrand, Chief
      Financial Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

KYOUNG JA KIM AND CHANG SOON KIM,

Petitioners

v.

YUN & ASSOCIATES, P.C., KATHLEEN BANG WHAN CHUNG, MYOUNG JA JHANG, KOREA WEEK, CHANG HI YUN, AND CHRISTINE YUN,

Respondents :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 429 MAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 11th day of May, 2022

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
STATE of North Carolina v. Ernest F. DAVIS.

No. 213P04.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 24, 2004.

Rudolph A. Ashton, III, for Ernest F. Davis.

Jeffrey R. Edwards, Assistant Attorney General, G. Dewey Hudson, District Attorney, for State.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 11th day of May 2004 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 24th day of June 2004."
# C_2016392EN.01003701.xml

| 24.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/37

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2016 — Perfetti Van Melle Benelux v EUIPO — PepsiCo (3D)

(Case T-390/15) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark 3D - Earlier EU word and figurative marks 3D’S and 3D’s - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 392/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Perfetti Van Melle Benelux BV (Breda, Netherlands) (represented by: P. Testa, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: PepsiCo, Inc. (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: V. von Bomhard and J. Fuhrmann, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 May 2015 (Case R 465/2014-5), relating to opposition proceedings between PepsiCo and Perfetti Van Melle Benelux.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Perfetti Van Melle Benelux BV to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Perfetti Van Melle Benelux BV to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 311, 21.9.2015.

1

---
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 120 (Thursday, June 23, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 37520]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-13420]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed 
Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Heart, 
Lung, and Blood Advisory Council.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Advisory 
Council.
    Date: August 23, 2022.
    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Rockledge I, 6705 
Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Laura K. Moen, Ph.D., Director, Division of 
Extramural Research Activities, National Heart, Lung, and Blood 
Institute, National Institutes of Health, 6705 Rockledge Drive, Room 
206-Q, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-827-5517, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f09d9f959e9cb09d91999cde9e9998de979f86"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="315c5e545f5d715c50585d1f5f58591f565e47">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home 
page: www.nhlbi.nih.gov/meetings/nhlbac/index.htm, where an agenda 
and any additional information for the meeting will be posted when 
available.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.233, 
National Center for Sleep Disorders 1Research; 93.837, Heart and 
Vascular Diseases Research; 93.838, Lung Diseases Research; 93.839, 
Blood Diseases and Resources Research, National Institutes of 
Health, HHS)

    Dated: June 17, 2022.
Miguelina Perez,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-13420 Filed 6-22-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Helene Tonique WILLIAMS, Petitioner v. Toni PRECKWINKLE, et al.

No. 19-6622

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 13, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Corey
Henry, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2018-1
(the Exchange Act periodic reports);

2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not
contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

4. Based
on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in
all material respects; and

5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and
their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such
reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

In giving the certifications above, I
have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Wells Fargo Bank, National Association.



By:

/s/ Corey HenryName:

Corey HenryTitle:

President and Chief Executive OfficerSantander Drive Auto Receivables LLC, as Depositor(senior officer in charge of securitization ofthe depositor)Date:

March 29, 2019
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1287 

KA 10-00522 

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, LINDLEY, AND SCONIERS, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

PAUL VERBITSKY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

PETER J. DIGIORGIO, JR., UTICA, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

JOHN H. CRANDALL, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, HERKIMER (JACQUELYN M. ASNOE OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Herkimer County Court (Patrick L.

Kirk, J.), rendered August 4, 2008. The judgment convicted defendant,

upon his plea of guilty, of attempted burglary in the second degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him,

upon a plea of guilty, of attempted burglary in the second degree

(Penal Law §§ 110.00, 140.25 [2]). We reject defendant’s contention

that County Court erred in imposing an enhanced term of incarceration

based on postplea acts committed by defendant. “[T]o satisfy due

process, a sentencing court must, prior to imposing the prison

alternative pursuant to a plea agreement, conduct an inquiry

sufficient to conclude that a violation of the plea agreement

occurred” (People v Valencia, 3 NY3d 714, 715; see People v Outley, 80

NY2d 702, 713), and the court made the requisite inquiry here (see

Valencia, 3 NY3d at 715; People v McGrath, 67 AD3d 1475, 1476, lv

denied 14 NY3d 803). We reject defendant’s further contention that

the sentence is unduly harsh or severe. Finally, defendant failed to

preserve for our review his contention that the sentence imposed

constituted cruel and unusual punishment (see People v Rogers, 63 AD3d

1631, lv denied 13 NY3d 745, 749; People v Clark, 61 AD3d 1426, 1427,

lv denied 12 NY3d 913) and, in any event, that contention lacks merit

(see People v Holmquist, 5 AD3d 1041, lv denied 2 NY3d 800).

Entered: December 23, 2011 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
Patrick CHRISTIAN, Petitioner, v. William H. DADMUN, et al.

No. 19-6003

Supreme Court of the United States.

Nov. 25, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
- Home
- Facts
- What is Old Sow?

# **What is Old Sow?**

## Old Sow is the name of the Western Hemisphere's **largest whirlpool**.

*While the turbulent water of Old Sow can be dangerous to small-craft mariners, its swirling motion has a positive environmental effect.  It causes nutrients and  tiny sea creatures normally found in the bay’s colder, deeper waters to rise to  the surface. This process, called upwelling, ensures good eating for the resident  fish and seabirds.*

When the tide comes in from the Bay of Fundy, located off the Atlantic Coast between  the State of Maine and the Province of New Brunswick, a tremendous amount of  ocean water, called a current, flows swiftly into a confined area called the  Western Passage before emptying upriver into Passamaquoddy Bay. After making a sharp  right turn to the north and traversing a deep trench, flowing past an  underwater mountain, and encountering several countercurrents, a portion of the  current "pinches off" to form the huge circular current called Old Sow, and,  often, several smaller ones, nicknamed “piglets.” Circular currents of all  sizes are commonly known as whirlpools, vortexes, eddies, and gyres.

Old  Sow varies in size but has been measured at more than 250  feet in diameter, about the length of a soccer field. While the turbulent water can be dangerous to small-craft mariners — some of whom have barely escaped a 12-foot drop into the Sow’s gaping maw — its swirling motion has a positive environmental effect. It causes nutrients and  tiny sea creatures normally found in the bay’s colder, deeper waters to rise to  the surface. This process, called upwelling, ensures good eating for the resident  fish and seabirds.

So why is the whirlpool called "Old  Sow?" According to folklore, the name refers to the "grunting" noise — which sounds  like hungry pigs slurping up their slop — made by the giant churning gyre.  "Sow" may also be a mispronunciation of the word "sough" (pronounced *suff*),  which means "sucking noise" or "drain." 

##### More **Information**

What is an eddy?

What is a gyre?

 Motion in the Ocean (video podcast)

 Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and Services

##### **Last updated:**

###### 						 1/04/21					

**Author:** NOAA

How to cite this article

Contact Us

##### 					Feedback

          -  Provide Feedback 
          -  Contact Us
          -  Report an error

##### 					Social

          - 
          - 
          - 
*Science. Service.Stewardship.*
							About NOS						- About Us
- NOS Program Offices
- Media Inquiries
- Website Acknowledgements
- Site Index
- Disclaimer
							More Resources						- Freedom of Information Act
- Accessibility
- Information Quality
- Privacy Policy
- NOS For Employees
- USA.gov
-  Department of Commerce
-  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
-  National Ocean Service
# C_2016227EN.01000201.xml

| 23.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 227/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 227/2

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 17 June 2016

adopting the Council’s position on draft amending budget No 2 of the European Union for the financial year 2016

(2016/C 227/03)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 314 thereof, in conjunction with the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 106a thereof,

Having regard to Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (1) and in particular Article 41 thereof,

1

Whereas:

| — | the Union’s budget for the financial year 2016 was definitively adopted on 25 November 2015 (2), |
| --- | --- |

—

the Union’s budget for the financial year 2016 was definitively adopted on 25 November 2015 (2),

2

| — | on 15 April 2016, the Commission submitted a proposal containing draft amending budget No 2 to the general budget for the financial year 2016, |
| --- | --- |

—

on 15 April 2016, the Commission submitted a proposal containing draft amending budget No 2 to the general budget for the financial year 2016,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Sole Article

The Council’s position on draft amending budget No 2 of the European Union for the financial year 2016 was adopted on 17 June 2016.

The full text can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the Council’s website: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/

Done at Luxembourg, 17 June 2016.

For the Council

The President

J. R. V. A. DIJSSELBLOEM

---

(1)  OJ L 298, 26.10.2012, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ L 48, 24.2.2016, p. 1.

2

---
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

 

No. 02-60673

Summary Calendar

 

GEORGE DUNBAR PREWITT, JR.,

 

Appellant. 

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 4:96-MC-1

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

February 5, 2003

Before JONES, STEWART and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

George Dunbar Prewitt, Jr., appeals the district court’s order deny ing his FED. R. CIV. P.

60(b)(4) motion challenging the magistrate judge’s sua sponte order barring Prewitt from the third

floor of the United States Courthouse and Federal Building in Greenville, Mississippi. The

requirement that Rule 60(b) motions be brought within a reasonable time is not enforced with respect

to motions under Rule 60(b)(4). See Carter v. Fenner, 136 F.3d 1000, 1006 (5th Cir. 1998).
-2-

Accordingly, the district court erred in denying the motion on the ground that it was not filed with

a reasonable time. 

Although Prewitt could be barred fromthe courthouse for the reasonslisted by the magistrate

judge, Prewitt should have been provided with notice and an opportunity to respond. See B JOE

Thomson, No. 02-20191 (5thCir. Sept. 19, 2002) (unpublished). We vacate the district court’s order

and remand this matter with instructions that Prewitt be ordered by the district court to show cause

why he should not be barred from the third floor of the courthouse in the future. 

VACATE AND REMAND WITH INSTRUCTIONS.
Exhibit 32.1



Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350.



In connection with the Quarterly Report of AT&S Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard G. Honan, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.1350, that:



·

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



·

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





Dated:  August 12, 2005



//s// Richard G. Honan

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

Richard G. Honan,

Chief Executive Officer
CAMERON v. MERISEL, INC.

No. 227PA04.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 12, 2004.

William W. Pollock, Gloria Taft Becker, Raleigh, for Merisel, Inc., et al.

Steven B. Epstein, John D. Burns, Raleigh, for Cameron.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 11th day of October 2004 by Plaintiffs for Extension of Time to File Brief:

> "Motion Allowed. Plaintiffs shall have up to and including the 29th day of November 2004 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 12th day of October 2004."