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


<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>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                  JAN-1-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           2,296,899
<SECURITIES>                                   346,300,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,299,435
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    41,471
<PP&E>                                                   0
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 362,390,563
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,691,255
<BONDS>                                         21,445,340
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                                 0
<OTHER-SE>                                     331,668,199
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   362,390,563
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                14,754,276
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,086,670
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,843,135
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 429,012
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,055,808
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      0
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,055,808
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          .12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0
        


</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

BETH ANNE F. WEBER

v.

MARK D. WEBER

v.

MICHAEL WEBER

PETITION OF: MICHAEL WEBER :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 291 WAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 3rd day of March, 2020

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
#### Scalise Industries, Inc., Appellant, v Jeffery J. Murdock, Individually and Doing Business as Northern Propellers, Respondent.

(Appeal No. 2.)

[801 NYS2d 185]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Herkimer County (Michael E. Daley, J.), entered January 20, 2005. The judgment dismissed the amended complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: We conclude that Supreme Court properly granted defendant’s motion. Contrary to plaintiffs contention on appeal, the court did not err in treating defendant’s motion as one for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint. Although defendant initially sought dismissal of the amended complaint for failure to state a cause of action, the record establishes that “the parties charted a summary judgment course,” and thus we conclude that the court in effect properly treated defendant’s motion as one for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint *(Clark v State of New York*[appeal No. 2], 302 AD2d 942, 944 [2003]). Defendant established as a matter of law that the “Employee Non-Compete Agreement” upon which plaintiff relies is unreasonable with respect to its temporal and geographic terms *(see generally Judge v Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart*& *Rhodes,*197 AD2d 148 [1994], *lv denied*84 NY2d 803 [1994]). In addition, defendant established as a matter of law that plaintiff has no legitimate interest with respect to the alleged misappropriation of any trade secrets or confidential customer lists, nor does plaintiff require “protection from competition by a former employee whose services are unique or extraordinary” *(BDO Seidman v Hirshberg,*93 NY2d 382, 389 [1999]). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Kehoe, Martoche and Lawton, JJ.
WILLIAMSON v. WOODARD FUNERAL HOME, INC.

No. COA07-182.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed January 15, 2008.

Certification Date February 4, 2008.

Appeal from Guilford (05CVS10071).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 964/2013 (repealed)Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 964/2013 of 9 October 2013 on fixing an adjustment rate to direct payments provided            for in Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 in respect of calendar year 2013 (repealed)         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 964/2013                     

# of 9 October 2013

# on fixing an adjustment rate to direct payments provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 in respect of calendar                        year 2013 (repealed)                     

F1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                        

Textual Amendments

F1Repealed by Council Regulation (EU) No 1181/2013 of 19 November 2013 fixing an adjustment rate to direct payments provided for in Council                                 Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 in respect of calendar year 2013 and repealing Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 964/2013.
EXHIBIT 32.1
                                                                    ------------


                                  CERTIFICATION

          CERTIFICATION REQUIRED BY RULE 13A-14(B) AND SECTION 1350 OF
                CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE

In connection with the report of Compton Petroleum Corporation (the "Company")
on the Form 40-F for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003, 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.


DATED this 30th day of March, 2005.



/s/ Ernie G. Sapieha
--------------------------
Ernie G. Sapieha
President & Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer),
Compton Petroleum Corporation
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
THERMOSPECTRA CORPORATION'S QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED
SEPTEMBER 27, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-03-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-27-1997
<CASH>                                          13,409
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   44,486
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,420
<INVENTORY>                                     38,778
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               103,276
<PP&E>                                          34,753
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,255
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 255,439
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           60,300
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           154
<OTHER-SE>                                     126,121
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   255,439
<SALES>                                        139,140
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               139,140
<CGS>                                           80,914
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   80,914
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,930
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   703
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,924
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,602
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,372
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,230
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,230
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 23.1


                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration  Statement (No.
333-52005)  on Form S-1 of U.S.  Timberlands  Company,  LP of our  report  dated
January 24,  2001,  except as to Note 15, as to which the date is  February  26,
2001,  relating to the  consolidated  financial  statements of U.S.  Timberlands
Company, LP and subsidiaries, and of our report dated January 24, 2001, relating
to the financial  statements of U.S.  Timberlands Yakima, LLC which are included
in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

                                                Richard A. Eisner & Company, LLP




New York, New York
April 13, 2001
#### In the Matter of Eric Robinson, Appellant, v Glenn S. Goord, as Commissioner of Correctional Services, Respondent.

[800 NYS2d 786]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Clemente, J.), entered May 26, 2004 in Albany County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, granted respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction.

By order to show cause and petition, petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging respondent’s determination that he was guilty of violating certain prison disciplin*1151ary rules. Petitioner was granted an extension to effect proper service and, in an amended order to show cause, Supreme Court directed that petitioner serve the petition and any supporting affidavits, as well as the amended order to show cause, upon respondent and the Attorney General before a certain date. After petitioner failed to comply with these requirements, respondent moved to dismiss the petition for lack of personal jurisdiction. Supreme Court granted the motion and petitioner now appeals.

“ ‘It is well settled that an inmate’s failure to comply with the service directives set forth in the order to show cause requires dismissal of the petition absent a showing that prison presented an obstacle to the service requirements’ ” *(Matter of Frederick v Goord,*20 AD3d 652, 653 [2005], quoting *Matter of Green v Duncan,*10 AD3d 743, 744 [2004], *lv denied*4 NY3d 701 [2004]). Here, it is undisputed that petitioner failed to serve respondent and the Attorney General with the amended order to show cause, and we find no record evidence to indicate that prison interfered with petitioner’s ability to effect proper service thereof. Inasmuch as orders to show cause require strict compliance with their terms, Supreme Court did not err in dismissing the petition *(see Matter of Arosena v Carpenter,*19 AD3d 838 [2005]).

In light of the foregoing, we need not address petitioner’s remaining contentions.

Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Carpinello, Mugglin and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 703/2013Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 703/2013 of 23 July 2013 establishing the standard import values for determining            the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 703/2013                     

# of 23 July 2013

# establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural                           markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation)(1),                        

Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application                           of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors(2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations,                              the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products                              and periods stipulated in Annex XVI, Part A thereto.

(2)The standard import value is calculated each working day, in accordance with Article 136(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU)                              No 543/2011, taking into account variable daily data. Therefore this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its                              publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to                     this Regulation.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*.                  

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 23 July 2013.

*For the Commission, On behalf of the President,*                            

Jerzy Plewa                            

*Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development*                            

## ANNEXU.K.Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1.
**Exhibit 23.2**
**Information Regarding Consent of Arthur Andersen LLP**
     Section 11(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “SecuritiesAct”), provides that if part of a registration statement at the time it becomeseffective contains an untrue statement of a material fact, or omits a materialfact required to be stated therein or necessary to make the statements thereinnot misleading, any person acquiring a security pursuant to such registrationstatement (unless it is proved that at the time of such acquisition such personknew of such untruth or omission) may assert a claim against, among others, anaccountant who has consented to be named as having certified any part of theregistration statement or as having prepared any report for use in connectionwith the registration statement.
     In June 2002, Arthur Andersen LLP (“Andersen”) was convicted ofobstructing justice, which is a felony offense. The SEC prohibits firmsconvicted of a felony from auditing public companies. Andersen is thus unableto consent to the incorporation by reference of IntrogenTherapeutics, Inc.’s previously filedRegistration Statements on Form S-8 (Registration Nos. 333-58648, 333-59826 and333-82122), and Andersen’s audit report with respect to Introgen Therapeutics,Inc.’s consolidated financial statements as of December 31, 2001 and for thesix month period then ended and as of June 30, 2001 and for the two years inthe period then ended. Under these circumstances, Rule 437a under theSecurities Act permits Introgen Therapeutics, Inc. to file this Annual Reporton Form 10-K, which is incorporated by reference into the RegistrationStatements, without a written consent from Andersen. As a result, with respectto transactions in Introgen Therapeutics, Inc. securities pursuant to theRegistration Statements that occur subsequent to the date this Annual Report onForm 10-K is filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Andersen willnot have any liability under Section 11(a) of the Securities Act for any untruestatements of a material fact contained in the financial statements audited byAndersen or any omissions of a material fact required to be stated therein.Accordingly, persons acquiring securities pursuant to any of these registrationstatements would be unable to assert a claim against Andersen under Section11(a) of the Securities Act.
SMITH v. BECK.

No. 228P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 4, 2006.

Philip Allen, Assistant Attorney General, for Theodis Beck.

*492The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 26th day of April 2006 by Petitioner for Appointment of Counsel:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference this the 4th day of May 2006."
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.19
                                January 27, 1999
 
Mr. James F. Petersen
9706 Carmel Court
Bethesda, MD 20817
 
Dear Jim:
 
     This letter is intended to document our agreement to amend the Employment
Agreement between you and Best Software, Inc., dated May 17, 1995 (the
"Agreement") effective as of February 1, 1999, as detailed below.
 
     1. Section 3.1 of the Agreement is deleted and replaced with the following:
 
         Salary.  The Company shall pay the Employee, in installments not less
         than monthly, an annual base salary of $120,000.00. Such salary shall
         be subject to upward adjustment thereafter as determined by the Board,
         in its sole discretion, consistent with the annual average rate of
         upward adjustment of base salary levels of senior executive employees
         of the Company.
 
     2. The second paragraph of Section 2 is deleted.
 
     Except as expressly modified by this letter, all of the terms and
conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
 
     In order for these modifications to become effective, please sign and date
both copies of this letter where indicated and then return one fully executed
copy to me.
 
                                          Very truly yours,
 
                                          Timothy A. Davenport
                                          President and Chief Executive Officer
 
SEEN AND AGREED TO:
 
---------------------------------------
James F. Petersen
 
                                      F-21
Exhibit 10(p)
 SOLUTIA INC.
NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN
 ARTICLE I: INTRODUCTION
 1.1 Purpose.
 1.2 Legal status.
 1.3 Effective date.
 ARTICLE II: DEFINITIONS
 2.1 Key terms and construction.
 Compensation
 Employer
 Participant
 Plan Year
 Restricted Stock Units (RSUs)
 Separation from Service




---



##### 



ARTICLE III: ADMINISTRATION
 3.1 Plan administrator.
 ARTICLE IV: ELIGIBILITY
 4.1 Plan participation.
 ARTICLE V: ACCOUNTS
 5.1 Establishment of accounts.
 5.2 Investment Credits.
  2




---



##### 



ARTICLE VI: CONTRIBUTIONS
 6.1 Elective compensation and restricted stock deferrals.
  th
 6.2 Election forms.
 ARTICLE VII: VESTING
 7.1 Vesting.
 ARTICLE VIII: BENEFIT PAYMENTS
 8.1 Form and time of payment.
 8.2 Death benefits.
  3




---



##### 



ARTICLE IX: SOURCE OF PAYMENTS
 9.1 Rabbi trust.
 9.2 Benefits and expenses.
 ARTICLE X: MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
 10.1 Plan amendment and termination.
 10.2 Non-alienation of benefits.
  4




---



##### 



10.3 Indemnification.
 10.4 Successors.
 10.5 Severability.
 10.6 Controlling law.
  5
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3519 

To amend the Animal Welfare Act to provide further protection for puppies. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 18 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 17), 2008 

Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mrs. MCCASKILL, and Mr. 

WYDEN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 

A BILL 

To amend the Animal Welfare Act to provide further 

protection for puppies. 

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 ‘‘Puppy Uniform Pro5 tection and Safety Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REGULATION OF HIGH-VOLUME SELLERS OF PUP7 PIES. 

8 (a) RETAIL PET STORE DEFINED.—Section 2 of the 

9 Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2132) is amended by add10 ing at the end the following new subsection: 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

•S 3519 IS

1 ‘‘(p) The term ‘retail pet store’ means a person 

2 that— 

3 ‘‘(1) sells an animal directly to the public for 

4 use as a pet; and 

5 ‘‘(2) does not breed or raise more than 50 dogs 

6 for use as pets during any one-year period.’’. 

7 (b) LICENSES.—Section 3 of the Animal Welfare Act 

8 (7 U.S.C. 2133) is amended in the second proviso— 

9 (1) by striking ‘‘retail pet store or other person 

10 who’’ and inserting ‘‘retail pet store, or other person 

11 who (1) does not breed or raise more than 50 dogs 

12 for use as pets during any one-year period, and (2)’’; 

13 and 

14 (2) by striking ‘‘research facility’’ and inserting 

15 ‘‘research facility,’’. 

16 (c) HUMANE STANDARDS.—Section 13 of the Animal 

17 Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2143) is amended— 

18 (1) by redesignating subsections (g) and (h) as 

19 subsections (h) and (i), respectively; 

20 (2) by redesignating the second subsection (f) 

21 as subsection (g); and 

22 (3) by adding at the end the following new sub23 section: 

24 ‘‘(j)(1) Subject to paragraph (2), a dealer shall pro25 vide each dog held by such dealer that is of the age of 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

3 

•S 3519 IS

1 12 weeks or older with a minimum of two exercise periods 

2 during each day for a total of not less than one hour of 

3 exercise during such day. Such exercise shall include re4 moving the dog from the dog’s primary enclosure and al5 lowing the dog to walk for the entire exercise period, but 

6 shall not include use of a treadmill, catmill, jenny mill, 

7 slat mill, or similar device, unless prescribed by a doctor 

8 of veterinary medicine. 

9 ‘‘(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to a dog certified 

10 by a doctor of veterinary medicine, on a form designated 

11 by and submitted to the Secretary, as being medically pre12 cluded from exercise.’’. 

13 SEC. 3. EFFECT ON STATE LAW. 

14 The amendments made by this Act shall not be con15 strued to preempt any law or regulation of a State or a 

16 political subdivision of a State containing requirements 

17 that are greater than the requirements of the amendments 

18 made by this Act. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS