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

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1994
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1994
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1994
<CASH>                                             676
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,110
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,400
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,446
<PP&E>                                          10,564
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (3,307)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  10,676
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,765
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           44,602
<PREFERRED>                                        431
<COMMON>                                           290
<OTHER-SE>                                    (44,432)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    10,676
<SALES>                                          4,802
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,477
<CGS>                                            3,188
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,188
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,653
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,166
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,530)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        17
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,547)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    831
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (15,476)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.61)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.61)
        

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000053500
<NAME> JETRONIC INDUSTRIES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> 0
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                             711
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,512
<ALLOWANCES>                                        80
<INVENTORY>                                      6,891
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                12,922
<PP&E>                                           3,878
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,495
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  14,992
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,841
<BONDS>                                          3,856
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           367
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,106
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    14,992
<SALES>                                         12,536
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,536
<CGS>                                           10,081
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,462
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 593
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    481
<INCOME-TAX>                                        24
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                457
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       457
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .11
        

</TABLE>
# C_2007160EN.01001201.xml

| 13.7.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 160/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 160/12

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4572 — Vinnolit/Ineos CV's Specialty PVC Business)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 160/04)

On 26 June 2007, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4572. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4572. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu)

---
Exhibit 32.1





Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer


Pursuant to


18 U.S.C. Section 1350





In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Ares Capital Corporation (the “Company”) for the quarter ended June 30, 2018 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), R. Kipp deVeer, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Penni F. Roll, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his or her knowledge:





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





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


Date: August 1, 2018/s/ R. KIPP DEVEERR. Kipp deVeerChief Executive Officer (principal executive officer)Date: August 1, 2018/s/ PENNI F. ROLLPenni F. RollChief Financial Officer (principal financial officer)





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Ares Capital Corporation and will be retained by Ares Capital Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# L_2007022DE.01001601.xml

| 31.1.2007 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 22/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2007

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 22/16

---

Berichtigung der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1984/2006 der Kommission vom 20. Dezember 2006 zur Änderung der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 2535/2001 mit Durchführungsbestimmungen zur Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1255/1999 des Rates zur Einfuhrregelung für Milch und Milcherzeugnisse und zur Eröffnung der betreffenden Zollkontingente

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 387 vom 29. Dezember 2006
  )

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 387 vom 29. Dezember 2006

Seite 4, Artikel 1 Punkt 7 Buchstabe a:

anstatt:

| „a) | Absatz 1 wird wie folgt ersetzt:
  „(1)   Die Lizenz wird von den zuständigen Behörden des Mitgliedstaats innerhalb von fünf Arbeitstagen vom fünften Tag nach dem Meldungstag gemäß Artikel 15 ab gerechnet erteilt.“ “ |
| --- | --- |

„a)

Absatz 1 wird wie folgt ersetzt:

„(1)   Die Lizenz wird von den zuständigen Behörden des Mitgliedstaats innerhalb von fünf Arbeitstagen vom fünften Tag nach dem Meldungstag gemäß Artikel 15 ab gerechnet erteilt.“ “

muss es heißen:

| „a) | Absatz 1 wird wie folgt ersetzt:
  „(1)   Die Lizenz wird von den zuständigen Behörden des Mitgliedstaats innerhalb von fünf Arbeitstagen nach dem fünften Tag nach dem Meldungstag gemäß Artikel 15 erteilt.“ “ |
| --- | --- |

„a)

Absatz 1 wird wie folgt ersetzt:

„(1)   Die Lizenz wird von den zuständigen Behörden des Mitgliedstaats innerhalb von fünf Arbeitstagen nach dem fünften Tag nach dem Meldungstag gemäß Artikel 15 erteilt.“ “

---
#### Richard Johnson et al. *v.*Salvatore Ruotolo et al.

*Frank P. Cannatelli,*in support of the petition.

Decided May 26, 1993

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 30 Conn. App. 913 (AC 11275), is denied.
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

T.T., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, OLD 

HAMMOND STATION, Baton Rouge, LA,

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-1361

Issued: October 25, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On September 27, 2022 appellant filed an appeal from a March 29, 2022 merit decision

of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the Appellate Boards

assigned Docket No. 22-1361.

The Board has duly considered the matter and notes that the Board has jurisdiction to 

review final adverse decisions of OWCP issued under the Federal Employees’ Compensation 

Act.1 For final adverse decisions of OWCP issued on or after November 19, 2008, the Board’s 

review authority is limited to appeals which are filed within 180 days from the date of issuance 

of OWCP’s decision.2

The 180th day following the March 29, 2022 decision was September 25, 2022. As 

appellant did not file an appeal with the Board until September 27, 2022, more than 180 days 

after the March 29, 2022 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 

22-1361 is untimely filed. The Board is without jurisdiction to review the appeal. Appellant has 

not explained her failure to timely file an appeal with supporting documentation sufficient to 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a).

2

20 C.F.R. § 501.3(e).
2

establish compelling circumstances. Because there is no final adverse decision issued by OWCP 

within 180 days of the filing of the instant appeal, the Board concludes that the appeal docketed 

as No. 22-1361, must be dismissed.3 Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 22-1361 is dismissed.

Issued: October 25, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

3 The Board’s decisions and orders are “final upon the expiration of 30 days from the date of their issuance.” Id.

at § 501.6(d).
H. R. 5395 

One Hundred Eleventh Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, 

the fifth day of January, two thousand and ten 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 151 North 

Maitland Avenue in Maitland, Florida, as the ‘‘Paula Hawkins Post Office Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. PAULA HAWKINS POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 151 North Maitland Avenue in Maitland, Florida, 

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Paula Hawkins Post Office 

Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Paula Hawkins Post Office Building’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1031/2004

of 27 May 2004         

determining the allocation of export licences for certain milk products to be exported to the Dominican Republic under the quota referred to in Article 20a of Regulation (EC) No 174/1999

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products (1),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 174/1999 of 26 January 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 as regards export licences and export refunds in the case of milk and milk products (2), and in particular Article 20a(11) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The quantities covered by export licence applications for the products referred to in Article 20a(3) of Regulation (EC) No 174/1999 submitted for the period 1 July 2004 to 30 June 2005 shall be multiplied by the following allocation coefficients:

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 28 May 2004.

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

Done at Brussels, 27 May 2004.

For the Commission

J. M. SILVA RODRÍGUEZ            

Agriculture Director-General

----

(1)OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 48. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 186/2004 (OJ L 29, 3.2.2004, p. 6).

(2)OJ L 20, 27.1.1999, p. 8. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 597/2004 (OJ L 94, 31.3.2004, p. 42).

----
#### EDDIE JOHN FINE, Appellant, v. WARDEN, NEVADA STATE PRISON, Respondent.

No. 7122

April 19, 1974

521 P.2d 374

*Gary A. Sheerin,*State Public Defender, Carson City, for Appellant.

*Robert List,*Attorney General, Carson City; *Robert C. Manley,*District Attorney, and *Gregory D. Corn,*Deputy District Attorney, Elko County, for Respondent.

*167OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

Eddie John Fine was charged by information with the crime of burglary. Upon his plea of *nolo contendere,*the district judge found him guilty of the ofíense. Fine was sentenced to serve 6 years in the Nevada State Prison. He has now filed a petition for post-conviction relief, claiming *inter alia*that his plea was predicated on “the representation of the prosecuting authorities that he would not be sentenced to prison but would be placed on probation; . . The district judge who presided at Fine’s arraignment and sentencing summarily denied Fine’s petition without affording him an evidentiary hearing.1 Schoultz v. Hocker, 469 F.2d 681 (9th Cir. 1972), is controlling in the instant case. Schoultz, who was a Nevada State prisoner, filed, after exhausting his state remedies, a habeas petition in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. The habeas petition was denied without an evidentiary hearing. One of Schoultz’s contentions, as is Fine’s, was that “he was induced to plead guilty in the state court because the prosecuting attorney made the promise that... he would be sentenced to a period of confinement not exceeding five to seven years.” Schoultz was sentenced to 10 years. In reversing and remanding the case, the Ninth Circuit held:

“It is well-established that if an accused enters a plea of guilty upon the basis of a promise made by an official representing the prosecution, and the promise is unequivocal, then he is entitled to withdraw his plea if the promise is unfulfilled. *See, e.g., Hilliard v. Beto,*465 F.2d 829 (5th Cir. 1972). *Cf. Santobello*v. *New York,*404 U.S. 257 (1971). Accordingly, Schoultz is entitled to an evidentiary hearing for the determination of the truth or falsity of the allegation as to the alleged promise. If the allegation is true, then he is entitled to plead *168anew in the state court. *Macon v. Craven,*457 F.2d 342 (9th Or. 1972)_”2

We, therefore, in following the ruling of Schoultz, reverse the order of the district judge and remand the case for an evi-dentiary hearing to determine the truth or falsity of Fine’s allegation of the alleged promise.

1

Apparently the district judge who, at the arraignment, had complied with the requirements of Higby v. Sheriff, 86 Nev. 774, 476 P.2d 959 (1970), then in full effect, concluded from a review of the transcript of those proceedings that Fine’s petition was meritless.

2

Although the ruling in Schoultz does not bind this court, we choose to follow it in the instant case, since to do otherwise would place an unnecessary burden upon the United States District Court in processing post-conviction applications asserting this particular ground for relief. Rahn v. Warden, 88 Nev. 429, 498 P.2d 1344 (1972).
# C_2007158EN.01000101.xml

| 11.7.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 158/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 158/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4700 — Deutsche Bank/AIG/Pushkino Logistics Park JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 158/01)

On 28 June 2007, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4700. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4700. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu)

---
#### Henry Steers, Incorporated, Respondent, *v.*Hewlett Bay Company, Appellant.

*Steers, Inc.,*v. *Hewlett Bay Co.,*171 App. Div. 913, affirmed.

(Argued October 30, 1918;

decided November 19, 1918.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered December 10, 1915, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict. Plaintiff entered into a contract with defendant to dredge material from certain parts of defendant’s land under water and deposit the same on other parts thereof. This action was brought to recover a sum representing the additional cost and expense of the plaintiff caused it by reason of the defendant’s failure to build the dikes necessary to control and impound the material dredged and pumped pursuant to this agreement as.provided in the contract. The plaintiff alleged that it had performed the contract on its part, but that the dikes broke and delayed the plaintiff in the work and caused the plaintiff to rehandle certain material without compensation and at additional cost and expense.

*Alfred T. Davison*and *James K. Foster*for appellant.

*Charles Thaddeus Terry*and *Curtis Calvin Cooper*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: His cock, Ch. J., Chase, Collin, Cuddeback, Cardozo, Pound and Andrews, JJ.
# C_2007267EN.01000201.xml

| 9.11.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 267/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 267/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4918 — Carlyle/Applus)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 267/03)

On 30 October 2007, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4918. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4918. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Bruce L. Wishnefsky, :

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 476 C.D. 2020

:

Pennsylvania Department of :

Corrections, :

Respondent :

PER CURIAM O R D E R

NOW, March 25, 2021, having considered Petitioner’s application for 

reargument, the application is denied.