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


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS         
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999         
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999           
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999          
<CASH>                                               2,181       
<SECURITIES>                                             0       
<RECEIVABLES>                                       14,248       
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0       
<INVENTORY>                                          9,449       
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    28,248       
<PP&E>                                               3,841       
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0       
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      46,241       
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               21,577       
<BONDS>                                                  0       
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0       
<PREFERRED>                                              0       
<COMMON>                                                95       
<OTHER-SE>                                          10,193       
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        46,241       
<SALES>                                              9,526       
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     9,526       
<CGS>                                                6,715       
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        4,024       
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0       
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0       
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     793       
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     (1,802)       
<INCOME-TAX>                                             8       
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 (1,744)       
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0       
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0       
<CHANGES>                                                0       
<NET-INCOME>                                        (1,744)       
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        (0.18)    
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (0.18)   
                                                                            


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 9, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 52337]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-20848]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Electricity Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Department of Energy, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy 
Reliability.

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy, Office of Electricity Delivery and 
Energy Reliability established the Electricity Advisory Committee on 
January 29, 2008 for a two-year period. The Committee was created to 
provide advice to the Assistant Secretary for Electricity Delivery and 
Energy Reliability, on long range planning and priorities for the 
modernization of the Nation's electricity delivery infrastructure. The 
Electricity Advisory Committee will hold a two-day meeting in 
Washington DC to discuss drafts of reports and electricity policy 
recommendations that the Committee may later submit to the Department 
of Energy.

DATES: September 25, 2008, 3:30 p.m. to 6 p.m. September 26, 2008, 8:30 
a.m. to 2 p.m.
    Location: September 25, 2008, Ronald Reagan Building and 
International Trade Center, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, 
DC 20004. September 26, 2008, L'Enfant Plaza Hotel, 480 L'Enfant Plaza, 
SW., Washington, DC 20024, Ballrooms C and D.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Meyer, DOE Office of Electricity 
Delivery and Energy Reliability, (202) 586-1411, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9bfffaedf2ffb5f6fee2fee9dbf3eab5fff4feb5fcf4ed"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f39792859a97dd9e968a9681b39b82dd979c96dd949c85">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Tentative Agenda: Discuss drafts of reports and electricity policy 
recommendations.
    Public Participation: The meeting will be open to the public. 
Members of the public who wish to speak or submit comments should 
contact David Meyer at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#553134233c317b38302c3027153d247b313a307b323a23"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8ce8edfae5e8a2e1e9f5e9fecce4fda2e8e3e9a2ebe3fa">[email protected]</span></a>, or (202) 586-1411. 
Copies of draft reports, the agenda for the meeting, and additional 
information are available at the EAC Web site: http://www.oe.energy.gov/eac_ meetings.htm.
    Minutes: The minutes from this meeting will also be posted to this 
website within 45 days following the meeting.

    Issued in Washington, DC on September 4, 2008.
Rachel Samuel,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. E8-20848 Filed 9-8-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7043 

To prohibit United States recognition of the claims of sovereignty of South 

Ossetia or Abkhazia within the Republic of Georgia. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 9, 2022 

Mr. PERRY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Foreign Affairs 

A BILL 

To prohibit United States recognition of the claims of sovereignty of South Ossetia or Abkhazia within the Republic of Georgia. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Republic of Georgia 

5 Sovereignty Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7043 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION AGAINST UNITED STATES RECOGNI2 TION OF THE CLAIMS OF SOVEREIGNTY OF 

3 SOUTH OSSETIA OR ABKHAZIA WITHIN THE 

4 REPUBLIC OF GEORGIA. 

5 (a) STATEMENT OF POLICY.—It is the policy of the 

6 United States not to recognize the claims of sovereignty 

7 of the following areas within the Republic of Georgia: 

8 (1) South Ossetia. 

9 (2) Abkhazia. 

10 (b) PROHIBITION.—In accordance with subsection 

11 (a), no Federal department or agency may take any action 

12 or extend any assistance that implies recognition of the 

13 claims of sovereignty of South Ossetia or Abkhazia within 

14 the Republic of Georgia, or any other closely-related suc15 cessor entities. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### Oliver FRERE, on Behalf of His Minor Son, Murphy Frere, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. NEW ORLEANS PUBLIC SERVICE, Inc., Defendant and Appellant.*

No. 14898.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

April 23, 1934.

Rehearing Denied May 7, 1934.

Ivy G. Kittredge, of New Orleans, for appellant.

Finnorn & Todd, Robt. B. Todd, and Cameron McCann, all of New Orleans, for appel-lees.

*

writ of certiorari refused May *ZL,*1934.

HIGGINS, Judge.

This suit results from the same accident which we considered in the case of Joseph Favaza v. N. O. Public Service, Inc., 154 So. 457, decided by us this day. Plaintiff, Oliver Frere, claims damages of $400 in .behalf of his minor son, who was driving the automobile of Favaza when the accident occurred, alleging the same grounds of negligence on the part of defendant company as was set forth in the other case.

For the reasons assigned in Favaza v. N. O. Public Service, Inc., the judgment herein appealed from is annulled, avoided, and reversed, and it is now ordered that there be judgment in favor of the defendant, New Orleans Public Service, Inc., and against the plaintiff, Oliver Frere, on behalf of his minor son, Murphy Frere, dismissing the plaintiff’s suit at his cost.

Reversed.
<PAGE>

                                                                Exhibit 99.2



                         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 PGI Incorporated (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Laurence A.
Schiffer, 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 the best of my knowledge:

(1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities 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.



/s/ Laurence A. Schiffer
------------------------
Laurence A. Schiffer
Chief Financial Officer
August 14, 2002



                                     20
EX-34 (b)
(logo) ERNST & YOUNG

* Ernst & Young LLP
  220 South Sixth Street, Ste. 1400
  Minneapolis, MN 55402-4509

* Phone: (612) 343-1000
  www.ey.com

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying Report on
Assessment of Compliance with SEC Regulation AB Servicing Criteria, that U.S.
Bank National Association (the Company) complied with the servicing criteria set
forth in Item 1122 (d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB
for the Corporate Trust Asset Backed Securities platform (the Platform) as of
and for the year ended December 31, 2006, except for criteria 1122 (d)(1)(i),
1122 (d)(1)(iii), 1122 (d)(2)(i) through 1122 (d)(2)(vii), 1122 (d)(3)(i)
through 1122 (d)(3)(iv), and 1122 (d)(4)(iv) through 1122 (d)(4)(xv), which the
Company has determined are not applicable to the activities performed by them
with respect to the servicing platform covered by this report. Management is
responsible for the Company's compliance with those servicing criteria. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion about the
Company's compliance with the servicing criteria based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with standards of the Public Company
Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining,
on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the applicable
servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered
necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of less than
all of the individual asset backed transactions and securities that comprise the
Platform, testing of less than all of the servicing activities related to the
Platform, and determining whether the Company processed those selected
transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the
servicing criteria. Furthermore, our procedures were limited to the selected
transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period
covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to determine whether
errors may have occurred either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may
have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company
during the period covered by this report for the selected transactions or any
other transactions. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis
for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the
Company's compliance with the servicing criteria.

In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with the
aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31,
2006, for the Corporate Trust Asset Backed Securities platform is fairly stated,
in all material respects.

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

February 26, 2007

A Member Practice of Ernst & Young Global
#### LAVIGNE v. BALTER.

No. 14645.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

March 26, 1934.

Jos. A. Oasse, of New Orleans, for appellant.

Legier, McEnerny & Waguespack, of New Orleans, for appellee.

WESTERFIELD, Judge.

This is a suit for damages for false arrest and malicious prosecution in which $7,500 is claimed by the plaintiff from the defendant.

Samuel Lavigne, the plaintiff, was employed by Bluford Balter, the defendant, as a night watchman on the premises known as the Balter building, owned by his wife, Mrs. Balter. On the morning of February 15,1931, the defendant learned that several offices in the Balter building had been entered by some one, and desks in the offices broken open and the contents rifled. The superintendent of the building, Robert Massie, after reporting the fact of the robbery to the defendant, who was the building manager, called the police headquarters on the telephone and caused two patrolmen to be sent to the office building for the purpose of investigating the robbery. When the officers arrived all porters and watchmen in the building were questioned, and several, among them the plaintiff, placed under arrest and confined in the First Precinct Police Station, charged by an affidavit bearing the signature of one of the police officers with being dangerous and suspicious characters under a city ordinance. The plaintiff remained in confinement for about twenty-four hours, and was released. Subsequently, upon trial before a recorder, he was discharged.

In Pellifigue v. Judice, 154 La. 782, 98 So. 244, 247, the case of Grant v. Deuel, 3 Rob. 17, 38 Am. Dec. 228, was referred to as having held that: “To maintain an action for a malicious prosecution the plaintiff must prove: First, the prosecution; second, that the defendant was the prosecutor, or the cause of the prosecution; third, that he was actuated hy malice; fourth, that there was no probable cause for the prosecution.” In the ease before us the defendant was not the prosecutor. He did not make the affidavit, nor is there any proof that he requested the officer to make it. No malice whatever is shown. As the manager of the building in which the robbery occurred, he caused an investigation to be made by the police, who, in turn, had the plaintiff arrested pending the completion of their examination, when it developed that there was no evidence against plaintiff and the charge was dismissed.

Whether the police acted upon sufficient grounds in arresting plaintiff is of no mo*547ment, because it cannot affect defendant’s liability in this suit. The fact that plaintiff, an innocent man, was incarcerated for twenty-four hours under suspicion of haying committed a crime is an unfortunate circumstance, but, happily, one which was soon relieved by the establishment of plaintiff’s innocence. There is, however, nothing in the record which would indicate that the defendant did anything more than a prudent conservator of property would be expected to do under the same conditions.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.
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 Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service 

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service, Treasury. 

# ACTION:

Notice of closed meeting of Art Advisory Panel. 

# SUMMARY:

Closed meeting of the Art Advisory Panel will be held in Washington, DC. 

# DATES:

The meeting will be held October 1 and 2, 2008. 

# ADDRESSES:

The closed meeting of the Art Advisory Panel will be held on October 1 and 2, 2008, in Room 4136 beginning at 9:30 a.m., Franklin Court Building, 1099 14th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Karen Carolan, C:AP:ART, 1099 14th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005. Telephone (202) 435-5609 (not a toll free number). 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., that a closed meeting of the Art Advisory Panel will be held on October 1 and 2, 2008, in Room 4136 beginning at 9:30 a.m., Franklin Court Building, 1099 14th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005. 

The agenda will consist of the review and evaluation of the acceptability of fair market value appraisals of works of art involved in Federal income, estate, or gift tax returns. This will involve the discussion of material in individual tax returns made confidential by the provisions of 26 U.S.C. 6103. 

A determination as required by section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act has been made that this meeting is concerned with matters listed in 5 U.S.C. section 552b(c)(3), (4), (6), and (7), and that the meeting will not be open to the public. 

Sarah Hall Ingram, 

Chief, Appeals.

[FR Doc. E8-20772 Filed 9-5-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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 amended Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of ORBCOMM Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2014 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, Marc J. Eisenberg, as President and Chief Executive Officer
and Robert G. Costantini, as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, 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:

1. The amended Annual Report on Form 10-K/A 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 amended Annual Report on Form 10-K/A fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of ORBCOMM Inc.



|                                                                                     
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Marc J. Eisenberg                                                                
|                                                                                     
|Marc J. Eisenberg President
and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)

Date: April 10, 2015



|                                                                                                       
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Robert G. Costantini                                                                               
|                                                                                                       
|Robert G. Costantini
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)

Date: April 10, 2015
National Presto Industries, Inc.
                                   Exhibit 11

The following presents the computation of per share earnings reflecting the
assumption that the granted shares under the 1988 Stock Option Plan will be
exercised.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
(IN THOUSANDS EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)
                                                                       Second Quarter           First Six Months
                                                                   -----------------------   -----------------------
                                                                      2003         2002         2003         2002
                                                                   ----------   ----------   ----------   ----------
<S>                                                                <C>          <C>          <C>          <C>
Net Earnings (loss) (1)                                            $    1,918   $    1,083   $    3,971   $   (1,277)
                                                                   ==========   ==========   ==========   ==========

Weighted average common shares outstanding (2)                          6,817        6,840        6,824        6,839

Common share equivalents relating to stock options when dilutive            1            1            1            -

Adjusted common and common equivalent
                                                                   ----------   ----------   ----------   ----------
   shares for computation (3)                                           6,818        6,841        6,825        6,839
                                                                   ==========   ==========   ==========   ==========

Net earnings (loss) per share:
     Basic (1 divided by 2)                                        $     0.28   $     0.16   $     0.58   $    (0.19)
                                                                   ==========   ==========   ==========   ==========
     Diluted (1 divided by 3)                                      $     0.28   $     0.16   $     0.58   $    (0.19)
                                                                   ==========   ==========   ==========   ==========
</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James Payne, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel P. FitzGerald, J.), rendered on October 2, 1987, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the second degree and robbery in the third degree and sentencing him to concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment of from lVi to 4Vi years and from 1 to 3 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

We are unpersuaded that the sentence imposed was unduly harsh or severe. Taking into account, “among other things, the crime charged, the particular circumstances of the individual before the court and the purpose of a penal sanction”, we perceive no abuse of discretion warranting a reduction in sentence. *(People v Farrar,*52 NY2d 302, 305.)

Further, defendant was sentenced in accordance with his *11plea bargain and within the statutory guidelines. "Having received the benefit of his bargain, defendant should be bound by its terms.” *(People v Felman,*141 AD2d 889, 890, *lv denied*72 NY2d 918.) Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Carro, Milonas and Smith, JJ.