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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                       3,126,175
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,977,440
<ALLOWANCES>                                   180,718
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            10,771,194
<PP&E>                                      83,782,409
<DEPRECIATION>                               9,663,959
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             101,125,381
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       10,091,159
<BONDS>                                     60,515,189
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       13,518,140
<PREFERRED>                                    239,701
<COMMON>                                       475,839
<OTHER-SE>                                  16,272,157
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               101,125,381
<SALES>                                      8,118,734
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,118,734
<CGS>                                        6,587,476
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                9,756,677
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                20,515
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           5,761,731
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (7,420,189)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (7,420,189)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            (2,384,931)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (12,176,580)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.32
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.32


</TABLE>
CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

Exhibit 31.2CERTIFICATIONS

I, Gustavo Goyzueta, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Pure Biofuels Corp.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does 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, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's
disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions
about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the
end of the  period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's
most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case
of  an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board
of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

|Date: May 21, 2007 |  |                        
|------------------ |  | -----------------------
|                   |  | /s/ Gustavo Goyzueta   
|                   |  | Gustavo Goyzueta       
|                   |  | Chief Financial Officer

---
Exhibit 32.2

Written Statement of the Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. §1350, I, the undersigned Managing Director and Chief Financial Officer of Regency Centers Corporation, the
general partner of Regency Centers, L.P.(the Partnership), hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of the Partnership for the year ended December 31, 2007 (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Partnership.

Date: March 28, 2008



|                                                       
|-------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Bruce M. Johnson                                   
|Bruce M. Johnson                                       
|Chief Financial Officer of Regency Centers Corporation,
|general partner of registrant
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2006-3421

ERNESTO G. OMELIS, Petitioner,

v.
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Respondent.

Ernesto G. Omelis , of Philippines, pro se. John S. Groat , Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for res pondent. With him on the brief were Peter D. Keisler , Assistant Attorney General, David M. Cohen , Director, and Franklin E. White, Jr. , Assistant Director. Appealed from: United States Merit Systems Protection BoardNOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2006-3421 ERNESTO G. OMELIS, Petitioner,

v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Respondent.

______ ____________________ DECIDED: March 9, 2007

______ ____________________ Before RADER, Circuit Judge , PLAGER, Senior Circuit Judge , and LINN, Circuit Judge

. PER CURIAM. Ernesto G. Omelis (“Omelis”) appeals fr om a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”), Omelis v. OPM , No. SF-0831-06-0305-I-1 (M.S.P.B. June 1, 2006) (“Initial Decision ”), which became the final decisi on of the Board after the Board denied Omelis’s petition for review, Omelis v. OPM , No. SF-0831-06-0305-I-1 (M.S.P.B. Aug. 9, 2006). In the initia l decision, the administrative judge (“AJ”) sustained a denial of Omelis’s application for survivor benefit s by the Office of Personnel Management. Because the Board’s decision is in accor dance with law and does not otherwise contain reversible error, we affirm

. Under 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c), “ our scope of review in an appeal from a decision of the Board is limited. Specifically, we must affirm the Board’s deci sion unless we find itto be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of disc retion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; obtained without procedures required by law, rule, or regulation having been followed; or unsupported by substantial ev idence.” Abell v. Dep’t of the Navy , 343 F.3d 1378, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). “The petitioner bears the burden of establishing error in the Board’s decision.” Harris v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs , 142 F.3d 1463, 1467 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Omelis’s argument that the AJ failed to consider his father’s civilian service record is not supported by the record or t he AJ’s decision, which addressed the service record but found that it failed to establish elig ibility for survivor benef its. Initial Decision , slip op. at 4-5. The AJ’s fi nding that Omelis’s father di d not complete any amount of creditable service is supported by substantial evidence. See 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c). We therefore are not pers uaded by Omelis’s argument that t he AJ misapplied the law; the relevant versions of the Civil Service Retire ment Act all require at least some amount of creditable service. See Tizo v. OPM , 325 F.3d 1378, 1379-80 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Finally, Omelis’s argument based on the Federal Em ployee’s Group Life Insurance fails because, as the AJ correctly held, the Board la cks jurisdiction over such a claim. Lewis v. MSPB , 301 F.3d 1352,1354 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Accordingly, we affirm. COSTS No costs.

2006-3421 2
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### Bureau of Land Management

          - [OR-010-1020-PK; HAG 06-001]

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lakeview District.

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

The TRI RAC will hold a joint meeting for all members on Monday November 7, 2005 from 8 a.m. Pacific Standard Time (PT) to 5 p.m. Tuesday November 8, 2005. The meeting will begin at 7:30 a.m. and end about noon. The meeting is being held at the Running Y Ranch Resort, Conference Room, 5500 Running Y Road, Klamath Falls, Oregon 97601. Meeting sessions are open to the public. A comment period is scheduled for 10:15 a.m. (PT) on Monday November 7, 2005. The meeting topics to be discussed include: New member orientation and video, a BLM and Forest Service update by the State Director and Regional Forester, Congressional updates, and a panel discussion on RAC involvement. Grazing regulations, the wild horse and burro program, and planning and implementation updates will follow. There will be a panel discussion on volunteerism and outside funding, stewardship contracting, proactive strategies and a RAC restructuring proposal. There may also be other issues that may come before the Councils.

The Southeast Oregon Resource Advisory Council will hold a brief meeting Sunday November 6, 2005, at the Running Y Ranch Resort at 3 p.m. (PT) in the Board Room. The John Day-Snake Resource Advisory Council will hold a brief meeting on Tuesday November 8, 2005 following the close of the TRI RAC meeting. These additional meetings will be to discuss the same issues and concerns that are scheduled for the TRI RAC meeting.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Additional information concerning the TRI RAC meeting may be obtained from Pam Talbott, contact representative, Lakeview Interagency Office, 1301 South G Street, Lakeview, Oregon 97630 (541) 947-6107, or                         *ptalbott@or.blm.gov.*

Dated: October 4, 2005.

Shirley Gammon,

Lakeview District Manager.

[FR Doc. 05-20321 Filed 10-7-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-33-M
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-18-00185-CV

Jessica Gryseels

v.

Marina Vista Condominium Council of Co-Owners Association

On appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 2 of Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 16-08-09604-CV

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution. The Court 

orders the appeal DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION in accordance with its 

opinion. Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellant.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

October 11, 2018
<PAGE>




                               FIRST AMENDMENT TO
                    AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


This FIRST AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT, made as of
November 15, 2002, between INSIGNIA FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., with an address at
200 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10166 (the "Company"), and JEFFREY P. COHEN,
residing at 757 King Street, Chappaqua, New York 10514 ("the Executive").

         WHEREAS, the Executive is presently employed by the Company pursuant to
an Amended and Restated Employment Agreement, dated as of May 12, 2000, by and
between the Executive and the Company (the "Agreement"); and

         WHEREAS, the Executive and the Company desire to further amend the
Agreement as hereinafter set forth.

         NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, The Executive and
the Company agree as follows:

         1. DEFINED TERMS. All capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined
herein shall have the meanings ascribed thereto in the Agreement.

         2. AMENDMENT TO SECTION 1 OF THE AGREEMENT. Section 1 of the Agreement
is amended to replace "December 31, 2002" with "December 31, 2005", thereby
extending the term of the Agreement to, and defining the Expiration Date as,
December 31, 2005.

         3. AFFIRMATION. Except as amended hereby, the Agreement shall remain in
full force and effect.

         4. COUNTERPARTS. This Amendment may be executed in any number of
counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which
together shall constitute one and the same instrument.

         5. GOVERNING LAW. This Amendment shall be governed by and construed in
accordance with the laws of the State of New York, without reference to the
conflict of law provisions thereof.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Amendment as of
the date first above written.


                                        INSIGNIA FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.


                                        By: /s/ ADAM B. GILBERT
                                           ---------------------------
                                        Name: ADAM B. GILBERT
                                             -------------------------
                                        Title: EXECUTIVE VP
                                              ------------------------


                                        /s/Jeffrey P. Cohen
                                        ------------------------------
                                        JEFFREY P. COHEN
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

91 

CA 11-01689 

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, CARNI, AND MARTOCHE, JJ. 

 

GORDON LILLIE AND JOYCE LILLIE, 

PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

WILMORITE, INC., DOING BUSINESS AS GREECE RIDGE 

CENTER, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT-RESPONDENT.

 

TREVETT CRISTO SALZER & ANDOLINA P.C., ROCHESTER (VALERIE L. BARBIC OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT-RESPONDENT.

KAMMHOLZ MESSINA, LLP, VICTOR (CHARLES D. STEINMAN OF COUNSEL), FOR

PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS. 

 

Appeal and cross appeal from a judgment and order (one paper) of

the Supreme Court, Monroe County (John J. Ark, J.), entered December

7, 2010 in a personal injury action. The judgment and order denied

the motion of defendant for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. 

It is hereby ORDERED that said cross appeal is unanimously

dismissed, the judgment and order is reversed on the law without

costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed. 

Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this action seeking damages for

injuries sustained by plaintiff Gordon Lillie when he slipped and fell

on a patch of black ice in the parking lot of the Mall at Greece Ridge

Center (mall). Defendant, the mall’s property management company,

moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that

it did not have actual or constructive notice of the ice upon which

plaintiff slipped and fell. We agree with defendant on its appeal

that Supreme Court erred in denying the motion. Defendant met its

initial burden of demonstrating that it had neither actual notice of

the icy condition in question nor constructive notice thereof,

inasmuch as the patch of black ice was not “visible and apparent,” and

plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition

(Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836, 837; see

Phillips v Henry B’S, Inc., 85 AD3d 1665, 1666; Mullaney v Royalty

Props., LLC, 81 AD3d 1312).

In addition, plaintiffs’ cross appeal must be dismissed because

they are not aggrieved by the judgment and order denying defendant’s

motion (see generally Town of Massena v Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 45

NY2d 482, 488). To the extent that plaintiffs contend as an

alternative ground for affirmance that their meteorologist’s expert
-2- 91 

CA 11-01689 

affidavit was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact and that the

court erred in disregarding it (see generally Parochial Bus Sys. v

Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 60 NY2d 539, 545-546), we reject that

contention. The climatological data upon which the meteorologist

based his opinions was not submitted therewith, and thus the affidavit

lacked an adequate factual foundation and was of no probative value

(see Walter v United Parcel Serv., Inc., 56 AD3d 1187; Schuster v

Dukarm, 38 AD3d 1358, 1359; see generally Romano v Stanley, 90 NY2d

444, 452). In any event, the expert’s opinion would not change our

determination herein (cf. Zemotel v Jeld-Wen, Inc., 50 AD3d 1586).

Entered: February 10, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Joel Marin

, * From the 142nd District Court

of Midland County,

Trial Court No. CR42371.

Vs. No. 11

- 14

- 00303

- CR * November 10 , 2016

The State of Texas

, * Memorandum Opinion by Wright, C.J.

(P anel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J. , and Bailey, J. )

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there

is no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s

opinion, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
**EXHIBIT 32**

**CERTIFICATION      OF CEO AND CFO PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

|                              |                                 |                               |
|-----------------------------------|--------------------------------------|------------------------------------|
|                              | WILSHIRE              BANCORP, INC.  |
|                         |                            |                          |
| Date:              August 9, 2005 | By:                        | /s/ Soo              Bong Min |
|                              | Soo              Bong Min            |
|                              | Chief              Executive Officer |

|                                   |                                 |                               |
|-----------------------------------|--------------------------------------|------------------------------------|
|                         |                            |                          |
| Date:              August 9, 2005 | By:                        | /s/ Brian              E. Cho |
|                              | Brian              E. Cho            |
|                              | Chief              Financial Officer |

----
**Avis juridique important**

*|*

# 32001D0299

**2001/299/EC: Commission Decision of 30 March 2001 amending Decision 94/85/EC drawing up a list of third countries from which the Member States authorise imports of fresh poultrymeat (Text with EEA relevance) (notified under document number C(2001) 980)***Official Journal L 102 , 12/04/2001 P. 0069 - 0070*

Commission Decision

of 30 March 2001

amending Decision 94/85/EC drawing up a list of third countries from which the Member States authorise imports of fresh poultrymeat

(notified under document number C(2001) 980)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2001/299/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 91/494/EEC of 26 June 1991 on animal health conditions governing intra-Community trade in and imports from third countries of fresh poultrymeat(1), as last amended by Directive 1999/89/EC(2), and in particular Article 9(1) thereof,

Having regard to Council Directive 92/118/EEC of 17 December 1992 laying down animal health and public health requirements governing trade in and imports into the Community of products not subject to the said requirements laid down in specific Community rules referred to in Annex A(I) to Directive 89/662/EEC and, as regards pathogens, to Directive 90/425/EEC(3), as last amended by Commission Decision 2001/7/EC(4), and in particular Article 10(2)(a),

Whereas:

(1) Commission Decision 94/85/EC(5), as last amended by Decision 2000/609/EC(6), established a list of third countries from which importation of fresh poultrymeat is authorised.

(2) Commission Decision 94/278/EC(7) drawing up a list of third countries from which Member States authorise imports of certain products subject to Directive 92/118/EEC, as last amended by Decision 2000/611/EC(8), specifies in part VIII of the Annex that eggs for human consumption are authorised from all third countries listed in Decision 94/85/EC.

(3) Iceland has requested to be authorised to export eggs for human consumption to the Community and written assurances have been received.

(4) Examination of these assurances has shown that this country satisfies the requirements of the Community for the importation of poultrymeat and eggs for human consumption. Therefore Decision 94/85/EC must be amended accordingly.

(5) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The Annex to Decision 94/85/EC is replaced with the Annex to this Decision.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 30 March 2001.

For the Commission

David Byrne

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 268, 24.9.1991, p. 35.

(2) OJ L 300, 23.11.1999, p. 17.

(3) OJ L 62, 15.3.1993, p. 49.

(4) OJ L 5, 5.1.2001, p. 27.

(5) OJ L 44, 17.2.1994, p. 31.

(6) OJ L 258, 12.10.2000, p. 49.

(7) OJ L 120, 11.5.1994, p. 44.

(8) OJ L 259, 13.10.2000, p. 64.

ANNEX

"ANNEX

This is a list in principle and importations shall fulfil the relevant animal and public health requirements

>TABLE>"