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

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN THE FOTOBALL USA, INC. FORM 10-QSB FOR THE
PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 2000, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                       2,225,406
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,991,032
<ALLOWANCES>                                   250,015
<INVENTORY>                                  4,761,704
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            11,761,226
<PP&E>                                       3,155,337
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,936,023
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,245,332
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,234,590
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        35,754
<OTHER-SE>                                  11,732,168
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                13,245,332
<SALES>                                      5,934,149
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,934,149
<CGS>                                        3,795,053
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,928,957
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,748
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                249,125
<INCOME-TAX>                                    99,650
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            149,475
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   149,475
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .04



</TABLE>
585 A.2d 379

#### MILDRED L. MANZO v. AMALGAMATED INDUSTRIES UNION LOCAL 76B.

September 18, 1990.

Petition for certification denied. (See 241 *N.J.Super.*604, 575 A.2d 903.)
**Exhibit 15.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-199513) of DBV Technologies S.A. (the “Company”) ofour reports dated April 28, 2016, relating to the consolidated financial statements of the Company, which report expresses an unqualified opinion, and the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting, which reportexpresses an adverse opinion on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting because of a material weakness, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2015. 

/s/ Deloitte & Associés 

Represented by JulienRazungles 

Neuilly-sur-Seine, France 

April 28, 2016
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RAYMOND FELDMAN; et al.,

Plaintiffs

- Appellants,

v.
THE HONORABLE PATTI JO Mc KAY; et al.,
Defendants

- Appellees. No. 15

- 56958
D.C. No. 2:15

- cv - 04892

- MMM

JEM

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Margaret M. Morrow, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 18, 2017 **
Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Plaintiffs appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims in connection with plaintiff s ’ state court unlawful detainer proceedings . We have jurisdiction under

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

JAN 26 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 15

- 56958

28 U.S.C. § 129 1. We review de novo a dismissal under the Rooker

- Feldman

doctrine , Noel v. Hall , 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003) , and we affirm. The district court properly dismissed plaintiffs’ action for lack of subject

matte r jurisdiction under the Rooker

- Feldm an doctrine because their claims

constituted a forbidden “de facto appeal” of a prior , final state court judgment

. See

id . at 1163 (“ It is a forbidd en de facto appeal under Rooker

- Feldman when the plaintiff in federal district court complains of a legal wrong allegedly committed by the state court, and seeks relief from the judgment of that court

. ”) ; see also Mothershed v. Justices of Supreme Court , 410 F.3d 602, 604 n.1 (9th Cir. 2005) ( s tate court proceedings “ended for Rooker

- Feldman purposes ” upon state supreme court’s denial of a request for writ of mandamus). We reject as unsupported by the record plaintiffs’ contention that defendants issued a void order in state court proceedings t hat precluded the application of Rooker

- Feldman

. Contrary to plaintiffs’ contention, t he district court’s order granting the

motion to dismiss did not violate the law of the case doctrine because the issues presented in that motion had not already been d ecided by the district court or a higher court. See Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Salazar , 706 F.3d 1085, 1090 (9th Cir. 2013) (law of the case doctrine pertains to reconsideration of “ an issue3 15

- 56958

that has already been decided by the same court or a highe r court in the same

case .” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted))

.
AFFIRMED.
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 835 

To update the map of, and modify the maximum acreage available for 

inclusion in, the Florissant Fossil Beds National Monument. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 2, 2017 

Mr. LAMBORN (for himself, Mr. POLIS, and Mr. TIPTON) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To update the map of, and modify the maximum acreage 

available for inclusion in, the Florissant Fossil Beds 

National Monument. 

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

3 SECTION 1. MAP UPDATE; MAXIMUM ACREAGE AVAILABLE 

4 FOR INCLUSION IN THE FLORISSANT FOSSIL 

5 BEDS NATIONAL MONUMENT. 

6 The first section of Public Law 91–60 (83 Stat. 101) 

7 is amended— 

8 (1) by striking ‘‘entitled ‘Proposed Florissant 

9 Fossil Beds National Monument’, numbered NM– 

10 FFB–7100, and dated March 1967, and more parVerDate Sep 11 2014 04:11 Feb 09, 2017 Jkt 069200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H835.IH H835

smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 835 IH

1 ticularly described by metes and bounds in an at2 tachment to that map,’’ and inserting ‘‘entitled 

3 ‘Florissant Fossil Beds National Monument Pro4 posed Boundary Adjustment’, numbered 171/ 

5 132,544, and dated May 3, 2016,’’; and 

6 (2) by striking ‘‘six thousand acres’’ and insert7 ing ‘‘6,300 acres’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
Exhibit
10.7


 


GLOBALINK
INVESTMENT INC.

1180 Avenue of the Americas, 8 Floor


New
York, NY 10036


 


December 6,
2021


 


GL
Sponsor LLC

1180 Avenue of the Americas, 8 Floor


New
York, NY 10036


 


Ladies
and Gentlemen:


 


This
letter will confirm our agreement that, commencing on the effective date (the “Effective Date”) of the registration
statement (the “Registration Statement”) for the initial public offering (the “IPO”) of the securities
of Globalink Investment Inc. (the “Company”) and continuing until the earlier of (i) the consummation by the Company
of an initial business combination or (ii) the Company’s liquidation (in each case as described in the Registration Statement)
(such earlier date hereinafter referred to as the “Termination Date”), GL Sponsor LLC (“Sponsor”)
shall make available to the Company certain office space, secretarial and administrative services as may be required by the Company from
time to time, situated at 1180 Avenue of the Americas, 8 Floor, New York, NY 10036 (or any successor location). In exchange therefore,
the Company shall pay Sponsor a sum not to exceed $10,000 per month, on the Effective Date and continuing monthly thereafter until the
Termination Date. Sponsor hereby agrees that it does not have any right, title, interest or claim of any kind in or to any monies that
may be set aside in a trust account (the “Trust Account”) that may be established by the Company for the benefit of
the Company’s public stockholders upon the consummation of the IPO as described in the Registration Statement (“Claim”)
and hereby waives any Claim it may have in the future as a result of, or arising out of, any negotiations, contracts or agreements with
the Company and will not seek recourse against the Trust Account for any reason whatsoever.


 


[Signature
page follows]


 






    	 



     


    

 


	 	Very
    truly yours,
	 	 
	 	GLOBALINK
    INVESTMENT INC.
	 	 
	 	By:	/s/
    Say Leong Lim
	 	Name:	 Say
    Leong Lim
	 	Title:	Chief
    Executive Officer


 


	AGREED
    TO AND ACCEPTED BY:	 
	 	 
	GL
    SPONSOR LLC 	 
	 	 
	By:	/s/
    Sally Lim	 
	Name:	Sally Lim	 
	Title:	Manager	 


 


[Signature page to Administrative Services Agreement]
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-60106

Summary Calendar

MARGARET JOYCE MAIN, as administratrix of the 

Estate of David C. V. Yamas, Deceased;

 SHERYL KATHERINE-ANN VAVOSA; and

 PAUL MICHAEL MARTIN YAMAS,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

VERSUS

OFFICE DEPORT, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Southern District of Mississippi

(3:95-CV-135-BN)

October 23, 1996

Before JONES, DeMOSS and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Plaintiffs brought this diversity suit seeking damages,

claiming that Office Depot, Inc. breached statutory and common law

duties, which breach was a proximate cause of the wrongful death of
David Yamas. The district court granted summary judgment to Office

Depot holding that Office Depot owed no duty, statutory or common

law, to David Yamas under the facts of this case. The district

court further held that Office Depot’s acts were not a proximate

cause of the accident which resulted in the death of David Yamas.

After conducting a de novo review of the record in this case,

we conclude that Office Depot was entitled to summary judgment for

essentially the reasons set out in the district court’s order.

Main v. Office Depot, Inc., Cause No. 3:95-CV-135BN, S.D.Miss.,

January 31, 1996.

AFFIRMED.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. MICHAEL STIUSO, JR.

October 20, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FOR PERIOD ENDING MARCH 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                       8,156,340
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          17,586
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             7,580,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 33,891,733
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                    154,304,696
<ALLOWANCE>                                  1,762,558
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             210,577,065
<DEPOSITS>                                 190,025,858
<SHORT-TERM>                                 1,039,496
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          1,129,285
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    12,416,033
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,111,154
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             210,577,065
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              3,409,184
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              502,701
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               115,963
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             4,027,848
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           1,672,927
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,682,076
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        2,345,772
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  150,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              1,462,466
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                955,156
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     955,156
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   587,857
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .20
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                       0
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             1,626,699
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       15
<RECOVERIES>                                         1
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            1,762,558
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

OCEAN TOWERS OF HUTCHINSON ISLAND CONDOMINIUM 

ASSOCIATION, INC.,

Appellant,

v.

ISLAND VILLAGE OF HUTCHINSON ISLAND OWNERS ASSOCIATION, 

INC., et al.,

Appellees.

No. 4D21-301

[May 27, 2021]

Non-final appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial 

Circuit, St. Lucie County; Barbara W. Bronis, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

2019CA002143.

Elaine D. Walter, Michelle B. King, Yvette Lavelle, and Connie F. Chen 

of Boyd Richards Parker & Colonnelli, Miami, for appellant.

David B. Earle and Jesse S. Hornberger of Ross Earle Bonan & Ensor, 

P.A., Stuart, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LEVINE, CJ., WARNER and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
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 Blyth, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending October 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert H. Barghaus, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




(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 result of operations of the Company.






/s/ Robert H. BarghausRobert H. BarghausVice President and Chief Financial OfficerDecember 3, 2010






This certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. § 1350, subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other purpose.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 198 (Thursday, October 14, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 63215]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-25829]


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

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT


Federal Salary Council Meeting

AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management.

ACTION: Notice of Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Salary Council will meet on October 29, 2010, at 
the time and location shown below. The Council is an advisory body 
composed of representatives of Federal employee organizations and 
experts in the fields of labor relations and pay policy. The Council 
makes recommendations to the President's Pay Agent (the Secretary of 
Labor and the Directors of the Office of Management and Budget and the 
Office of Personnel Management) about the locality pay program for 
General Schedule employees under section 5304 of title 5, United States 
Code. The Council's recommendations cover the establishment or 
modification of locality pay areas, the coverage of salary surveys, the 
process of comparing Federal and non-Federal rates of pay, and the 
level of comparability payments that should be paid.
    The October meeting will be devoted to reviewing the results of pay 
comparisons and formulating its recommendations to the President's Pay 
Agent on pay comparison methods, locality pay rates, and locality pay 
areas and boundaries for 2012. The meeting is open to the public. 
Please contact the Office of Personnel Management at the address shown 
below if you wish to submit testimony or present material to the 
Council at the meeting.

DATES: October 29, 2010, at 10 a.m.
    Location: Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street, NW., Room 
5H17, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles D. Grimes, III, Deputy 
Associate Director, Employee Services, Office of Personnel Management, 
1900 E Street, NW., Room 7H31, Washington, DC 20415-8200. Phone (202) 
606-2838; FAX (202) 606-4264; or e-mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3f4f5e46124f5a4d59504d525e515c5a124f5053565c467f504f5211585049"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a4d4c5dd89d4c1d6c2cbd6c9c5cac7c189d4cbc8cdc7dde4cbd4c98ac3cbd2">[email protected]</span></a>.

    For the President's Pay Agent.
John Berry,
Director.
[FR Doc. 2010-25829 Filed 10-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325-39-P


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

Deputy Clerk of the Board

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

1615 M Street NW

Washington, DC 20419

March 7, 2024

Re: Proposed Rule—Appellate Jurisdiction, 89 Fed. Reg. 8083 (Feb. 6, 2024)

Dear Ms. Everling,

Protect Democracy and Walter M. Shaub, Jr., former director of the U.S. Office of

Government Ethics, strongly support the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board’s proposed

rule, 89 Fed. Reg. 8083 (Feb. 6, 2024), updating its appellate jurisdiction to include the

appeal right that the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has proposed codifying

at 5 C.F.R. § 302.603. As we showed in our comment supporting OPM’s proposed rule, the

appeal right would reinforce OPM’s longstanding view that “employees who are moved

from the competitive to the excepted service, or from one excepted service schedule to

another, retain the status and civil service protections they had already accrued,” 88 Fed.

Reg. 63,862, 63,870 (Sept. 18, 2023). Employees’ retention of accrued status and

protections upon involuntary movement to an excepted service schedule is firmly rooted in

prior regulations, practice, and case law. See Comment of Protect Democracy & Walter

Shaub at 33-44, https://www.regulations.gov/comment/OPM-2023-0013-2134.

Sincerely,

/s/ Erica Newland /s/ William Ford

Erica Newland William Ford

Counsel, Protect Democracy Policy Advocate, Protect Democracy

erica.newland@protectdemocracy.org william.ford@protectdemocracy.org

/s/ Walter M. Shaub, Jr.

Walter M. Shaub, Jr.

Former Dir., U.S. Office of Gov’t Ethics

waltershaub@gmail.com

PROTECTDEMOCRACY.ORG • 2020 PENNSYLVANIA AVE. NW #163, WASHINGTON, DC 20006 • INFOPROTECTDEMOCRACY.ORG
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. LOUIS SACCHETTI.

November 2, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
EXHIBIT 31.1



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Jugal K. Taneja, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of DrugMax, Inc.;



2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;



4. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I am 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 quarterly 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; and



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



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 control over financial reporting.



|                         |  |  | 
|------------------------ |  |  | 
|Dated: November 14, 2003 |  |  | 
|                         |  |  | 
|                         |  |  |