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

<ARTICLE>      5
<MULTIPLIER>   1
       
<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                     JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                             3,726,400
<SECURITIES>                                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      2,025,936
<ALLOWANCES>                                         322,509
<INVENTORY>                                        2,363,287
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   7,854,671
<PP&E>                                             7,189,880
<DEPRECIATION>                                     2,877,571
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    16,073,495
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              4,354,808
<BONDS>                                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                0
<COMMON>                                              64,501
<OTHER-SE>                                        11,551,323
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      16,073,495
<SALES>                                           24,277,772
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  24,277,772
<CGS>                                             15,405,319
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     15,405,319
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   8,580,626
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      60,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  (128,452)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    1,776,838
<INCOME-TAX>                                         110,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                        0
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                       1,666,838
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                            .26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            .26
        

</TABLE>
Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Document 113 Filed 06/13/11 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Document 113 Filed 06/13/11 Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 133 (Wednesday, July 10, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 36368]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17329]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[OPP-00442; FRL-5383-6]


State FIFRA Issues Research and Evaluation Group (SFIREG); Open 
Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The State FIFRA Issues Research and Evaluation Group (SFIREG) 
will hold a 2-day meeting, beginning on Monday, July 15, 1996 and 
ending on Tuesday, July 16, 1996. This notice announces the location 
and times for the meeting and sets forth tentative agenda topics. The 
meetings are open to the public.

DATES: The SFIREG will meet on Monday, July 15, 1996, from 8:30 a.m. to 
4:30 p.m. and Tuesday, July 16, 1996 from 8:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the DoubleTree Hotel, 300 Army-
Navy Drive, Crystal City-Arlington, VA.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: Shirley M. Howard, Office of 
Pesticide Programs (7506C), Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., 
SW, Washington, DC 20460. Office location and telephone number: Rm. 
1100, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson-Davis Highway, Arlington, VA, 
(703) 305-5306 (phone), (703) 308-3259 (fax) and e:mail address: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b2daddc5d3c0d69cc1dadbc0ded7cbdff2d7c2d3dfd3dbde9cd5ddc4"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b8d0d7cfd9cadc96cbd0d1cad4ddc1d5f8ddc8d9d5d9d1d496dfd7ce">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The tentative agenda of the SFIREG includes 
the following:
    1.  Discussion regarding ``co-pack'' products.
    2.  FIFRA section 25(b) exemptions discussion.
    3.  Discussion of State Management Plans for ground water 
protection and the Office of Pesticide Programs' National Workshop.
    4.  Discussion of laboratory support for pesticide regulatory 
programs.
    5.  Demonstration of potential, and discussion of endangered 
species Internet Home Page.
    6.  Discussion of potential changes to SFIREG structure and 
function.
    7.  Presentation of SFIREG issues status report.
    8.  Regional SFIREG representatives' reports.
    9.  Pesticide resistence.
    11.  Discussion of Silver Platter subscriptions.
    10.  Other topics as appropriate.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection.

    Dated: June 28, 1996.

William L. Jordan,
Acting Director, Field Operations Division, Office of Pesticide 
Programs.

[FR Doc. 96-17329 Filed 7-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Steven J. NISSENBAUM, Petitioner/Appellant, v. Rita A. NISSENBAUM, Respondent/Respondent.

No. 69638.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.

Feb. 25, 1997.

Charles P. Todt, Christian A. Stiegemeyer, Clayton, for Petitioner/Appellant.

Daniel R. Sokol, Leigh Joy Carson, St. Louis, for Respondent/Respondent.

Before RHODES RUSSELL, P.J., and SIMON and KAROHL, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Steven J. Nissenbaum appeals from a dissolution decree entered by the Circuit Court of St. Louis County.

We affirm the decree of pursuant to Rule 84.16(b) and deny Rita A. Nissenbaum’s motion to dismiss. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. A memorandum, solely for the use of the parties involved, has been provided explaining the reasons for our holding.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
EnergyNorth Natural Gas, Inc. balance sheet and the statement of capitalization
at September 30, 1997 and from the statement of income and statement of cash
flows for the twelve months ended September 30, 1997 and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                       98,988<F1>
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                          0
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                          20,460
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        10,895
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 130,343
<COMMON>                                         3,000
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                       22,538
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                             18,155
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                  43,693
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                            42,913
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                      484
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                  43,253
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  130,343
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                       92,978
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                             3,478
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                      80,589
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                      84,067
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                          8,911
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                 792
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                   9,703
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         3,718
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,985
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                    5,985
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                         3,649
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                        2,625
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          11,977
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    $0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Net of accumulated depreciation of $47,815
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
---

|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                                

In connection with the Quarterly Report of MASS Petroleum Inc.,
(the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended August 31, 2009, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Vitaly Melnikov, Chief Financial Officer of the Company certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that, to 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.

By: /s/ Vitaly MelnikovVitaly
MelnikovChief Financial Officer, Principal Accounting Officer October
20, 2009

---
EXHIBIT 31.1
 CERTIFICATION
      (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 annual report is being prepared;(b)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this annual 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 annual report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent
fiscal year that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,
the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
  (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 controls over financial
reporting.
 Date: March 31, 2010
    /s/ Ricardo Figueiredo BomenyRicardo Figueiredo BomenyChief Executive Officer and Acting Chief Financial
Officer
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4042

To designate the United States courthouse located at 500 Pearl Street in

New York City, New York, as the ‘‘Ted Weiss United States Courthouse’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 10, 1996

Mr. NADLER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

A BILL

To designate the United States courthouse located at 500

Pearl Street in New York City, New York, as the ‘‘Ted

Weiss United States Courthouse’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION

4 The Federal building located at 500 Pearl Street in

5 New York City, New York, shall be known and designated

6 as the ‘‘Ted Weiss United States Courthouse’’.

7 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

8 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

9 paper, or other record of the United States to the United

10 States courthouse referred to in section 2 shall be deemed
2

HR 4042 IH

1 to be a reference to the ‘‘Ted Weiss United States Court2 house’’.

Æ
1

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

GREGORY MENOVCIK,

Plaintiff,

v.

BASF CORPORATION,

Defendant.

Case No. 09-12096

Honorable Julian Abele Cook, Jr.

ORDER

The Plaintiff, Gregory Menovcik, has accused his former employer, BASF Corporation, of

(1) unlawfully terminating him because of his age, in violation of the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights

Act, Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.2101, et seq. and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29

U.S.C. § 1140 et seq.; (2) defaming him by mischaracterizing the reasons for his termination to

third persons; (3) intentionally inflicting an unacceptable level of emotional distress upon him; and

(4) wrongfully interfering with an advantageous business relationship. 

On August 24, 2009, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(b)(6) with respect to Count IV (defamation), Count V (intentional infliction of emotional

distress), and Count VI (interference with an advantageous business relationship). On November

18, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a motion to amend his complaint, in which he voluntarily dismissed

Count VI and revised Counts III, IV, and V of his complaint. Seven days later (November 25th),

the Court received a letter from the Defendant in which it, through its counsel, asserted the

2:09-cv-12096-JAC-MKM Doc # 15 Filed 12/18/09 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 92
1

The Defendant also added the caveat in this letter that its withdrawal of opposition to the

Plaintiff’s request to amend should not be construed as an indication that it views the amended

complaint as having any merit. 

2

following:

In light of [the] Plaintiff’s recent motion to amend his complaint along with his

proposed amended complaint, [the Defendant] withdraws its pending motion to

dismiss. Further, [the Defendant] is withdrawing its opposition to [the] Plaintiff’s

motion to amend and will not oppose the filing of the amended complaint attached

to that motion.1

According to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “a party may amend its pleading only

with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave. The court should freely give leave

when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). In this case, the Court believes that the

Plaintiff’s proposed amended pleading is warranted. Inasmuch as the Defendant has (1) retracted

its opposition to the pending request to amend, and (2) withdrawn its motion to dismiss, the Court

will grant the Plaintiff’s motion seeking leave to file a first amended complaint which must be filed

within a period of seven (7) days from the date of this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 18, 2009 S/Julian Abele Cook, Jr. 

Detroit, Michigan JULIAN ABELE COOK, JR.

United States District Court Judge

2:09-cv-12096-JAC-MKM Doc # 15 Filed 12/18/09 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 93
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing Order was served upon counsel of record via the Court's ECF System to their respective

email addresses or First Class U.S. mail to the non-ECF participants on December 18, 2009.

s/ Kay Doaks 

Case Manager

2:09-cv-12096-JAC-MKM Doc # 15 Filed 12/18/09 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 94
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Gary L. WATKINS, Defendant-Appellant. Gary L. WATKINS, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent-Respondent.

Nos. 66923, 70284.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Feb. 25, 1997.

Deborah B. Wafer, Dist. Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

*532Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Jacqueline K. Hamra, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before DOWD, P.J., and REINHARD and GARY M. GAERTNER, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from the judgment on his conviction by a jury of robbery in the first degree, § 569.020, RSMo 1994, for which he was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment.1 We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion inciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

1

. As Appellant’s brief raises no issues pertaining to the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion, his appeal from this judgment is deemed abandoned. *State v. Gaines,*807 S.W.2d 678 n. 1 (Mo.App. E.D.1991).
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4042 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  2d Session

                               H. R. 4042

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the United States courthouse located at 500 Pearl Street 
     in New York City, New York, as the ``Ted Weiss United States 
                             Courthouse''.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4042

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the United States courthouse located at 500 Pearl Street 
     in New York City, New York, as the ``Ted Weiss United States 
                             Courthouse''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION

    The Federal building located at 500 Pearl Street in New York City, 
New York, shall be known and designated as the ``Ted Weiss United 
States Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the United States courthouse referred to 
in section 2 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Ted Weiss 
United States Courthouse''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 27, 1996.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

326 ASSOCIATES, L.P., § 

a Delaware limited partnership, § No. 211, 2016 

 § 

 Plaintiff-Below, § Court Below: Superior Court 

 Appellant, § of the State of Delaware 

§ 

v. § C.A. No.: N15C-09-228 

 § 

PROGRESSIVE SERVICES, INC., § 

 § 

Defendant-Below, § 

 Appellee. § 

 

Submitted: October 19, 2016 

Decided: November 2, 2016 

Before STRINE, Chief Justice; HOLLAND, and SEITZ, Justices. 

ORDER

 This 2nd day of November, 2016, after careful consideration of the parties’ 

briefs and the record on appeal, we find it evident that the final judgment of the 

Superior Court should be affirmed on the basis of the court’s Memorandum 

Opinion dated March 29, 2016. 

 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the final judgment of the 

Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 

 BY THE COURT: 

 /s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr.

Justice
Weather Underground, Incorporated v. Navigation Catalyst Systems, Incorporated et al Doc. 15

Dockets.Justia.com
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. ss.1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


      In connection with the Annual Report of CPC of America, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Rod A.
Shipman, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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.


                                        CPC OF AMERICA, INC.

Date: March 17, 2008
                                        By: /s/ Rod A. Shipman
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Rod A. Shipman, President and
                                            Chief Executive Officer
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

THERESA NELLIS,

Plaintiff(s), CASE NUMBER: 09-10191

HONORABLE VICTORIA A. ROBERTS

v.

AMERICA’S SERVICING COMPANY

and U.S. BANK N.A.,

Defendant(s).

 /

 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

On January 16, 2009, Plaintiff Theresa Nellis (“Nellis”) filed a three-count

Complaint against America’s Servicing Company and U.S. Bank N.A. (Doc. #1). The

Complaint alleges a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), the

Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, and the Michigan Consumer Mortgage

Protection Act. Nellis filed an “Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and

Preliminary Injunction” on the same date. (Doc. #2).

The Court held a telephone conference on January 20, 2009 regarding Nellis’s

motion for a temporary restraining order. In attendance were Kenneth W. Demers

representing Nellis, and Timothy B. Myers representing both Defendants.

After examining the four factors required to determine whether to grant injunctive

relief, the Court finds, at a minimal, Nellis has a claim under the FDCPA. Nellis’s motion

for a temporary restraining order is GRANTED.

2:09-cv-10191-VAR-DAS Doc # 4 Filed 01/20/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 55
2

Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c) requires Nellis to provide security to cover the costs and

damages Defendants may sustain if they were wrongfully enjoined. Pursuant to

stipulation by the parties, Nellis will pay $2,436.69 per month starting February 1, 2009.

IT IS ORDERED.

s/Victoria A. Roberts 

Victoria A. Roberts

United States District Judge

Dated: January 20, 2009

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this

document was served on the attorneys of

record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on

January 20, 2009.

s/Linda Vertriest 

Deputy Clerk

2:09-cv-10191-VAR-DAS Doc # 4 Filed 01/20/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 56