alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
PORTAGE PARTNERS, LTD.
(A DEVELOPMENT STAGE COMPANY)
STATEMENT OF STOCKHOLDER'S EQUITY


                                                            (Deficit)
                              Common   Add'tnl    Accumulated      Total
                              Stock      Paid         During            Stock-
Paid-in                   Shares      In           Development     holder's
                             Amount    Capital       Stage              Equity


August 20, 1999     2,500,000
Founders shares     $2,500      $75            $  -                $2,575


August 20, 1999
Shares issued      2,000,000
Stock dividend      2,000                         (2,000)                  -

Net (loss)
August 18, 1999
(inception) to
June 30, 2000                                          -                      -

Balance,
June 30, 2000      4,500,000
                            $4,500       $75          $(2,000)           $2,575

Net (loss)
For the year ended
June 30, 2001                                           (3,775)         (3,775)


Balance,           4,500,000
June 30, 2001       4,500            75             (5,775)          (1,200)

Net (loss)
For the year
ended
June 30, 2002                                                (687)        (687)

Balance,          4,500,000
June 30, 2002       4,500             75               (6,462)      (1,887)

Net (loss)
For the year
ended
June 30, 2003                                               (460)      (460)
                       4,500,000
                          $4,500            $75           $(6,922)     $(2,347)


Page 1


Net (loss)
For the year
ended
June 30, 2004                                               (805)      (805)
                       4,500,000
                          $4,500            $75           $(7,727)     $(3,152)



The accompanying notes are an intregal part of these financial statements.

Page 2
<PAGE>
                                                                     Exhibit 4.1


Number  ____                   CLICK COMMERCE, INC.               *______ Shares
                              A Delaware Corporation                Common Stock


     THIS CERTIFIES THAT _______ is the record holder of ___________ (_____)
shares of Common Stock of Click Commerce, Inc. (the "Corporation"), transferable
only on the share register of the Corporation by the holder, in person or by
such holder's duly authorized attorney, upon surrender of this Certificate
properly endorsed or assigned.

     This Certificate and the shares represented hereby shall be held subject to
all of the provisions of the Certificate of Incorporation and the Bylaws of said
Corporation and any amendments thereto, a copy of each of which is on file at
the office of the Corporation and made a part hereof as fully as though the
provisions of said Certificate of Incorporation and Bylaws were imprinted in
full on this Certificate, to all of which the holder of this Certificate, by
acceptance hereof, assents and agrees to be bound.

     The Corporation will furnish without charge to each stockholder who so
requests, the powers, designations, preferences and relative, participating,
optional or other special rights of each class of stock or series thereof and
the qualifications, limitations or restrictions of such preferences or rights.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this Certificate to be
signed by its duly authorized officers this ____ day of _______, _____.



__________________________________          ____________________________________
____________________, Secretary                ______________________, President

<PAGE>


FOR VALUE RECEIVED, THE UNDERSIGNED HEREBY SELLS, ASSIGNS AND TRANSFERS UNTO
_______________________________________________ SHARES REPRESENTED BY THE WITHIN
CERTIFICATE AND DOES HEREBY IRREVOCABLY CONSTITUTE AND APPOINT
____________________________ ATTORNEY TO TRANSFER THE SAID SHARES ON THE SHARE
REGISTER OF THE WITHIN NAMED CORPORATION WITH FULL POWER OF SUBSTITUTION IN THE
PREMISES.

DATED ____________, _____
                                                  ______________________________
                                                     (Signature)

NOTICE:  THE SIGNATURE ON THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME AS
WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THIS CERTIFICATE, IN EVERY PARTICULAR, WITHOUT
ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT, OR ANY CHANGE WHATEVER.


THE SHARES REPRESENTED BY THIS CERTIFICATE HAVE NOT BEEN REGISTERED UNDER THE
SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, AS AMENDED (THE "ACT"), AND HAVE BEEN ACQUIRED FOR
INVESTMENT AND NOT WITH A VIEW TO, OR IN CONNECTION WITH, THE SALE OR
DISTRIBUTION THEREOF. NO SUCH SALE OR DISTRIBUTION MAY BE EFFECTED WITHOUT AN
EFFECTIVE REGISTRATION STATEMENT RELATED THERETO OR AN OPINION OF COUNSEL IN A
FORM SATISFACTORY TO THE COMPANY THAT SUCH REGISTRATION IS NOT REQUIRED UNDER
THE ACT.
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

June 2, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

CHRISTOPHER E. STONE, for himself

and similarly situated employees,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

LOCKHEED MARTIN

CORPORATION, a Maryland

corporation; ROBERT J. STEVENS,

individually, and in his official capacity as

President/CEO; BRENT THODEN,

individually, and in his official capacity as

Manager; J. MICHAEL CONLEY, 

individually, and in his official capacity as

Manager; MICHAEL KEYACK,

individually, and in his official

capacity as Manager; ALICE

ELDRIDGE, individually, and in her

official capacity as Ethics VP; TERRY

JEFFERSON, individually, and in her 

official capacity as HR Manager;

FRANCINE LESSARD, individually, and

in her official capacity as EEO Director;

GRANT CASTLEBERRY, individually,

and in his official capacity as Sr.

Manager; WANDA HUNTER,

individually, and in her official capacity

as EEO Manager, MAX BEAL,

individually, and in his official capacity as

HR Manager,

Defendants - Appellees.

No. 10-1067

(D.C. No. 1:08-CV-02522-REB-KMT)

Appellate Case: 10-1067 Document: 01018433427 Date Filed: 06/02/2010 Page: 1 
-2-

ORDER

This matter is before the court on appellant’s motion to dismiss. The motion is

granted. See Fed. R. App. P. Rule 42 (b).

A copy of this order shall stand as and for the mandate of the court.

Entered for the Court,

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

Appellate Case: 10-1067 Document: 01018433427 Date Filed: 06/02/2010 Page: 2
CHILDREN'S MARITIME MUSEUM AT PORT JEFFERSON

Seeking the wisdom of the Stars to help 

understand Planet Earth

Angeline Judex

1/24/22 - 6/30/23

Six Teen and six Family Nights explore how NASA 

helps make lives better on Earth. An estimated 180 

families and 120 teens will be reached, mainly from 

groups underrepresented in STEM fields. The aim is 

that students and families see science as a realistic and

feasible goal for discovery and career. The events will 

focus on three global challenges - freshwater 

availability, food security, and natural disasters - and 

use related NASA activities: Water in Earth's 

Hydrosphere, Measuring Precipitation, and Building for 

Hurricanes. Youth participants from the Teen Nights will 

assist in implementing the activities at the Explorium’s 

Maker Faire Long Island, which attracts 3000+ visitors. 

A professional development training will also be 

conducted for librarians in the Suffolk Cooperative 

Library System (56 libraries serving 1.5 million 

residents), enabling them to deliver the NASA activities 

to their patrons.

List of Partners:

• Brentwood Public Library

• Middle Country Public Library

• Suffolk Cooperative Library System

• Stony Brook University, Dept of Geosciences

• Big Brothers Big Sisters of Long Island

Abigail Argueta of Brentwood, NY, shows off the 

anemometer she built after learning about natural

disasters, hurricanes, and how meteorologists 

measure wind speed.

Credits: Long Island Exploreum

The material contained in this document is based upon 

work supported by a NASA grant or cooperative 

agreement award #80NSSC22K0452, under the Teams 

Engaging Affiliated Museums and Informal Institutions

(TEAM II) activity of NASA’s Next Gen STEM Project.

Explore TEAM II Products 

https://www.nasa.gov/learning-resources/search/

www.nasa.gov
#### DANIEL & IRVING SCHWARTZ, T/A SCHWARTZ FURNITURE COMPANY v. DELTA ELECTRIC COMPANY OF N.J.

May 16, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
#### ATLANTIC CITY COIN AND SLOT SERVICE COMPANY, INC. v. O.T.X. CORPORATION.

May 16, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. GERALD MC CAULEY.

June 27, 1978.

Cross-Petition for certification denied. (See 157 *N. J. Super.*349)
National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration

Mary W. Jackson Building NASA Headquarters

Washington, DC 20546-0001

April 25, 2023

Reply to Attn of: General Law Practice Group

TO: Distribution

FROM: Agency Counsel for Ethics

SUBJECT: Determination Regarding Attendance by NASA employees at the Maryland 

Space Business Roundtable (MSBR) STEM Gala on May 5, 2023

On May 5, 2023, the Maryland Space Business Roundtable (MSBR), a nonprofit organization 

under 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, will host an annual dinner at the Stamp Student 

Union, University of Maryland (UMD), starting at 6:00 p.m. The guest speaker is 

Congressman Glen Ivey & STEM testimonial by WIE. The MSBR will be presenting an

award to a local Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) teacher. 

Approximately 200 people have been invited to attend. Attendees will have a diversity of 

views or interests and will include representatives from the legislative branch, state and local 

government officials, representatives from industry, employees of Federal agencies, 

academia, media and members of the public. The estimated cost of the event, including all 

food and beverages, is $85 per person. MSBR is in control of the organizing, planning and 

invitations for this event. Attendance at this event will allow NASA attendees to exchange 

information regarding various NASA programs. I find that the event meets the requirements 

of a “widely attended gathering” as defined in 5 C.F.R. § 2635.204(g)(2). 

I further determine that there is an Agency interest in having NASA personnel attend the 

event because it will provide an opportunity for the invited persons to exchange ideas and 

views pertaining to NASA’s policies, programs and operations. NASA employees, including 

NASA employees in non-career positions who are required to sign the ethics pledge under 

Executive Order 13989, who do not have a significant role in a matter affecting the interests 

of the sponsor may accept an invitation for free attendance to the event. In those 

circumstances, I find that the Agency’s interest in attendance outweighs any concern that the 

individual may be, or may appear to be, improperly influenced in the performance of their 

duties.

However, NASA employees who have a significant role in any pending matter affecting the 

interests of the MSBR, such as procurement duties, program management, or negotiating or 

administering a Space Act Agreement, should seek a separate determination from their local 

ethics counselor as to whether they may accept the invitation.
2

There will be fundraising in the form of a silent auction and a raffle the evening of the event. 

NASA attendees are reminded that participation in these fundraising events is strictly personal 

and voluntary. Attendees are also reminded to exercise any COVID-19 precautions 

appropriate to their individual situation.

Adam F. Greenstone
<TABLE> <S> <C>

        

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                     SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                    468,358
<SECURITIES>                              710,693
<RECEIVABLES>                           1,757,421
<ALLOWANCES>                               64,700
<INVENTORY>                             3,744,126
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        7,004,247
<PP&E>                                  4,832,729
<DEPRECIATION>                          1,879,532
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         11,543,809
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   1,522,213
<BONDS>                                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           0
<PREFERRED>                                     0
<COMMON>                                   76,769
<OTHER-SE>                              9,545,416
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           11,543,809
<SALES>                                 3,027,431
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        3,027,431
<CGS>                                   1,861,085
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           2,968,024
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           13,136
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         28,332
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            46,271
<INCOME-TAX>                                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        46,271
<DISCONTINUED>                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 0
<CHANGES>                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                               46,271
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 .01

        

</TABLE>
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. TERRY DUNSCOMB.

June 12, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 232 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 232

 To direct the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to 
designate New Jersey Task Force 1 as part of the National Urban Search 
                      and Rescue Response System.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 29, 2003

 Mr. Corzine (for himself and Mr. Lautenberg) introduced the following 
bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment 
                            and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To direct the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to 
designate New Jersey Task Force 1 as part of the National Urban Search 
                      and Rescue Response System.

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

SECTION 1. ADDITION OF TASK FORCE TO NATIONAL URBAN SEARCH AND RESCUE 
              RESPONSE SYSTEM.

    (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
            (1) the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, 
        demonstrated the importance of enhancing national domestic 
        terrorism preparedness;
            (2) 26 of the 28 urban search and rescue task forces 
        included in the National Urban Search and Rescue Response 
        System of the Federal Emergency Management Agency were called 
        into action in the wake of the events of September 11;
            (3) highly-qualified, urban search and rescue teams not 
        included in the National Urban Search and Rescue Response 
        System were the first teams in New York City on September 11;
            (4) the continuing threat of a possible domestic terrorist 
        attack remains an important mission for which the United States 
        must prepare to respond; and
            (5) part of that response should be to increase the number 
        of urban search and rescue task forces included in the National 
        Urban Search and Rescue Response System.
    (b) Addition of New Jersey Task Force 1.--The Director of the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency shall designate New Jersey Task 
Force 1 as part of the National Urban Search and Rescue Response 
System.
                                 <all>
```
#### SORIANO, HENKEL, STEIN & GAYDOS, ESQS. v. RICHARD J. HARLEY.

July 2, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
**Exhibit
      13.2**





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 Annual Report of Radware Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F
      for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Meir Moshe, Chief Financial
      Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted
      pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)  The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
      applicable, 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:
      June 11, 2008





/s/
                Meir MosheMeir
                MosheChief
                Financial Officer(Principal
                Financial Officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE THREE FISCAL QUARTERS ENDED
SEPTEMBER 29, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-29-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-29-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                              85
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      127
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        107
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   599
<PP&E>                                           3,196
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,327
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   4,769
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,773
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            39
<OTHER-SE>                                    (12,849)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     4,769
<SALES>                                          3,280
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,280
<CGS>                                              286
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   16,096
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,845
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (13,949)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (13,949)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (13,949)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.44)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.44)
        

</TABLE>
#### Venture Silicones, Inc., Respondent, et al., Plaintiff, v General Electric Company, Appellant.

[788 NYS2d 479]

Lahtinen, J. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Keegan, J.), entered April 2, 2004 in Albany County, which partially denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint.

*925Relying upon certain language in a July 2002 letter of intent signed by the parties, defendant made a preanswer motion to dismiss the complaint. In a thorough and well-reasoned decision, Supreme Court granted the motion as to plaintiff Pittsfield News Company, Inc., but denied it as to plaintiff Venture Silicones, Inc. (hereinafter plaintiff). Defendant appeals and we affirm.

At this procedural point in the litigation process, “[w]e accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord [plaintiff] the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory” *(Leon v Martinez,*84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]; *see Goshen v Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N.Y.,*98 NY2d 314, 326 [2002]). A defense based on documentary evidence will suffice to extinguish an action at this early stage only where “the documentary evidence utterly refutes plaintiffs factual allegations, conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law” *(Goshen v Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., supra*at 326).

A letter of intent regarding a proposed business venture was signed by the parties in July 2002 and provided, in relevant part, that “[n]either party shall have any liability or obligation to the other if the transactions described herein are not consummated.” Thereafter, from mid-2002 to 2003, plaintiff and defendant engaged in certain business dealings which, according to the verified complaint, resulted in plaintiff expending significant sums of money in reliance on various deceptive representations by defendant during such time. Plaintiff alleged that, even after defendant informed plaintiff that the venture would not proceed, it promised to repay plaintiff for funds expended, but then failed to do so. Plaintiff seeks to recoup the expended funds upon the equitable theories of quantum meruit, promissory estoppel and fraudulent inducement. Review of the complaint reveals adequate factual allegations to support each of these equitable theories. Plaintiff acknowledges that it is not entitled to, nor is it seeking, damages under the obligations mentioned in the letter of intent. We agree with Supreme Court that the cursory language drafted by and now relied upon by defendant—a sophisticated business entity—is not free from ambiguity *(compare Matter of Jana-Rock Constr. v New York State Dept. of Transp.,*267 AD2d 686, 687 [1999]).

Peters, J.P., Mugglin and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.