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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-28-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           2,439
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   39,597
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,463
<INVENTORY>                                     60,948
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               107,621
<PP&E>                                          28,835
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,586
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 128,977
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           56,462
<BONDS>                                          5,128
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            57
<OTHER-SE>                                      67,210
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   128,977
<SALES>                                         54,546
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                54,546
<CGS>                                           41,934
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   41,934
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    45
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 644
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,559
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,058
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,501
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,501
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.26
        

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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                       3,836,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               14,021,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                     936,251,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             (74,518,00)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             889,052,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                    397,247,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      3,000
<COMMON>                                       377,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 444,103,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               889,052,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            24,892,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               14,641,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           6,469,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,785,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 3,785,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,785,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,785,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.10
        

</TABLE>
# CE2004084EN.01005701.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/57

---

(2004/C 84 E/0063)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3214/03

by Jillian Evans (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(30 October 2003)

Subject:   North Korean refugees

Subject:

The enforced repatriation of North Korean refugees in China has been brought to my attention. Some of the individuals who are being repatriated face the real risk of detention and torture in North Korea.

This is concerning in view of Article 33 of the 1951 UN Refugee Convention which says that a state shall not return a refugee to a situation of serious risk.

What is the Commission's policy with regard to relations with North Korea and what can the Commission do to ensure that North Korean refugees in China are not forced to return to North Korea when it might be unsafe for them to do so?

---
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We have  issued our report  dated March 29,  2004,  accompanying  the  financial
statements  and schedule in the Annual  Report of BRIAZZ,  Inc. on Form 10-K for
the year ended  December 28, 2003.  We hereby  consent to the  incorporation  by
reference of said report in the Registration  Statements of BRIAZZ, Inc. on Form
S-8 (File No. 333-72354) and Form S-8 (File No. 333-109765).

/s/ Grant Thornton LLP
---------------------------------
Seattle, Washington
March 22, 2004
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       2,641,194
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,268,175
<PP&E>                                      19,951,780
<DEPRECIATION>                               8,004,204
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              16,067,712
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,727,312
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        38,650
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,537,486
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                16,067,712
<SALES>                                      7,305,372
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,305,372
<CGS>                                        3,278,033
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,653,988
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              93,016
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (429,030)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (429,030)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (429,030)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.11)


</TABLE>
# C_2023314EN.01002302.xml

| 4.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/23

---

Action brought on 13 July 2023 — Tiroler Sparkasse v SRB

(Case T-406/23)

(2023/C 314/28)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Tiroler Sparkasse Bankaktiengesellschaft Innsbruck (Innsbruck, Austria) (represented by: G. Eisenberger, A. Brenneis and J. Holzmann, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 2 May 2023 on the calculation of the 2023 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2023/23) together with annexes, at least in so far as it concerns the applicant, and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 2 May 2023 on the calculation of the 2023 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2023/23) together with annexes, at least in so far as it concerns the applicant, and

| — | order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs.

The applicant further claims that, on account of the connection between and same subject matter of the following cases, they should be joined for the purposes of the written or oral part of the procedure and decision, pursuant to Article 68 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court: T-400/23, Erste Group Bank v SRB, T-401/23, Erste Bank der österreichischen Sparkassen v SRB, T-402/23, Steiermärkische Bank und Sparkasse v SRB, T-403/23, Dornbirner Sparkasse Bank v SRB, T-404/23, Kärntner Sparkasse v SRB, T-405/23, Sparkasse Niederösterreich Mitte West v SRB, T-406/23, Tiroler Sparkasse v SRB, T-407/23, Salzburger Sparkasse Bank v SRB, T-408/23, Sparkasse Oberösterreich Bank v SRB.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law which is identical to that relied on in Case T-400/23, Erste Bank v SRB.

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                OCT-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                   NOV-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                     JAN-31-1999
<CASH>                               300,238
<SECURITIES>                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                        704,436
<ALLOWANCES>                         (57,492)
<INVENTORY>                       12,013,937
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           0
<PP&E>                             2,627,344
<DEPRECIATION>                      (609,167)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    17,166,236
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      0
<BONDS>                           56,868,497
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                                0
<COMMON>                           3,484,392
<OTHER-SE>                       (44,972,225)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      17,166,236
<SALES>                            8,458,088
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   8,637,429
<CGS>                              5,646,881
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      6,560,620
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    40,776
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    2,067,038
<INCOME-TAX>                         835,500
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        0
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                       1,231,538
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
Marina HEATZIG, Plaintiff v. Elizabeth MacLEAN, Defendant, v. B.A. MacLean and Wife, Charlotte MacLean, Intervenor Defendants and Cross-Complainants.

No. 418P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 11, 2008.

K. Edward Greene, D. Caldwell Barefoot, Jr., Tobias S. Hampson, Raleigh, for MacLean.

Karen P. Davidson, Narendra K. Ghosh, Chapel Hill, Burton Craige, Raleigh, for Heatzig.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 664 S.E.2d 347.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Defendant on the 9th day of September 2008 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30, and the motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question filed by the Plaintiff, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the motion to dismiss the appeal is

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 11th day of December 2008."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 9th day of September 2008 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 11th day of December 2008."
LATTER v. LA PETITE ACADEMY.

No. COA07-652.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed September 2, 2008.

Certification Date September 22, 2008.

Appeal from NC Industrial Commission (I.C. NO. 372867).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**








**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





For
      purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, Anthony Principe, the chief
      financial officer of On2 Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certifies
      that, to his knowledge:





(i) the
      Annual
      Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2005, as
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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








By:
            /s/
                ANTHONY PRINCIPEAnthony
                Principe*Chief
                Financial Officer**On2
                Technologies, Inc.*




March
      23,
      2007
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 743 Considered and Passed Senate (CPS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 743

   To amend title 36, United States Code, to modify the individuals 
 eligible for associate membership in the Military Order of the Purple 
          Heart of the United States of America, Incorporated.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 1, 2007

  Mr. Vitter (for himself, Mrs. Lincoln, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Domenici, Mr. 
Hagel, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Graham, Mr. Ensign, Mr. Smith, Mr. 
  Voinovich, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Allard, Mr. Coleman, Mr. Bunning, Mr. 
Isakson, and Mr. Thomas) introduced the following bill; which was read 
           twice, considered, read the third time, and passed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title 36, United States Code, to modify the individuals 
 eligible for associate membership in the Military Order of the Purple 
          Heart of the United States of America, Incorporated.

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

SECTION 1. MODIFICATION OF INDIVIDUALS ELIGIBLE FOR ASSOCIATE 
              MEMBERSHIP IN MILITARY ORDER OF THE PURPLE HEART OF THE 
              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INCORPORATED.

    Section 140503(b) of title 36, United States Code, is amended by 
inserting ``, spouses, siblings,'' after ``parents''.
                                 <all>
```
# CE2004088EN.01060201.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/602 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/602

---

(2004/C 88 E/0617)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0980/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(27 March 2003)

Subject:   Use of funds from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Firenze

Subject:

In September 2002, the monitoring committee of the Italian Ministry for Economic Affairs issued a report on the spending of EU funds.

The report reveals the alarming slowness and inefficiency with which EU funds are allocated to projects by some regional authorities.

The grave concerns about the inadequate use of European funds by local authorities have frequently been echoed by the Commission.

Bearing in mind that some local authorities, such as the municipality of Firenze, urgently need to use European funds to enhance the common cultural area in all its diversity and respecting all its traditions, nurturing creativity and professional mobility, and promoting access to and dissemination of art and culture,

can the Commission state:

| 1. | whether the municipality of Firenze has submitted projects for the Culture 2000 programme? |
| --- | --- |

1.

whether the municipality of Firenze has submitted projects for the Culture 2000 programme?

| 2. | whether the municipality of Firenze has secured funding for these projects? |
| --- | --- |

2.

whether the municipality of Firenze has secured funding for these projects?

| 3. | whether this funding has been used? |
| --- | --- |

3.

whether this funding has been used?

---
*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

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-20078

Summary Calendar

ROBERT J. MAYBERRY, III,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

PRUDENTIAL SECURITIES INCORPORATED,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(H-98-CV-3233)

 

August 20, 1999

Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Mayberry filed this suit against his former employer,

Prudential Securities (Prudential) under Title XII and 42 U.S.C. 

0§ 1981 alleging that Prudential had discriminated against him on

the basis of race. Prudential filed a motion to compel arbitration

along with a motion to dismiss the suit relying on an arbitration

agreement Mayberry signed in his application for securities

registration along with a separate arbitration agreement he

completed in his employment application with Prudential. The

district court granted the defendant’s motion to compel arbitration
 

2Prudential filed a number of motions, all of which are denied

as moot.

2

and after determining that all of the plaintiff’s claims were

arbitrable, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint.

On appeal, Mr. Mayberry argues that this court should “reverse

its prior holdings that Title VII claims, under the 1991

amendments, are subject to compulsory arbitration . . .” 

Even if this panel were so inclined, it does not have the

power to overrule established circuit precedent. Lineberry v.

United States, 512 F.2d 510 (5th Cir. 1975). In Rojas v. T.K.

Communications, Inc., 87 F.3d 745, 747 (5th Cir. 1996), we held

that arbitration agreements similar to those executed by the

plaintiff encompass Title VII and Section 1981 claims and require

that those claims be arbitrated. The district court correctly

dismissed plaintiff’s complaint.2

AFFIRMED.
# C_2010100EN.01003601.xml

| 17.4.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 100/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.4.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 100/36

---

Judgment of the General Court of 3 March 2010 — Bundesverband deutscher Banken v Commission

(Case T-163/05) (1)

1

(State aid - Transfer of public assets to Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen Girozentrale - Decision declaring the aid to be, in part, incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery - Private investor test - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based)

2010/C 100/54

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Bundesverband deutscher Banken eV (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: H.-J. Niemeyer, K.-S. Scholz and J.-O. Lenschow, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: N. Khan and T. Scharf, Agents)

Defendant:

Interveners in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by M. Lumma and C. Schulze-Bahr, acting as Agents, and by J. Witting, lawyer); Land Hessen (Germany) (represented initially by H.-J. Freund and M. Holzhäuser, and subsequently by H.-J. Freund and S. Lehr, lawyers); and Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen Girozentrale (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by H.-J. Freund, lawyer)

Interveners in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2006/742/EC of 20 October 2004 on aid granted by Germany [to] Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen — Girozentrale (OJ 2006 L 307, p. 159)

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Orders the documents produced by the Bundesverband deutscher Banken eV at Annexes 9 and 10 to the reply to be removed from the file; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Orders the documents produced by the Bundesverband deutscher Banken eV at Annexes 9 and 10 to the reply to be removed from the file;

| 2. | Dismisses the application; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the application;

| 3. | Orders the Bundesverband deutscher Banken to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, the Land Hessen and Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen Girozentrale; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Bundesverband deutscher Banken to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, the Land Hessen and Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen Girozentrale;

| 4. | Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 155, 25.6.2005.

1

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ismael Narvaez, Appellant.

[800 NYS2d 842]

Judgment Supreme Court, Bronx County (Megan Tallmer, J.), rendered June 10, 2004, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in or near school grounds, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 4V2 to 9 years, and imposing, inter alia, a DNA databank fee of $50, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of vacating the DNA databank fee, and otherwise affirmed.

As the Feople concede, since the crime was committed prior to the effective date of the legislation (Fenal Law § 60.35 [1] [a] [v] [former (1) (e)]), providing for the imposition of a DNA databank fee, that fee should not have been imposed. Concur— Friedman, J.P., Marlow, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.
STATE v. Claude Edward DAMMONS.

No. 295P15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 19, 2015.

<page vol="778" reporter="S.E.2d" no="437" /> The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 17th of August 2015 by Defendant for Petition for Discretionary Review:

> "Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 19th of November 2015."