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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                             136
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      701
<ALLOWANCES>                                        20
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   971
<PP&E>                                             656
<DEPRECIATION>                                      29
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   2,406
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              580
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           197
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,168
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     2,406
<SALES>                                          2,812
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,812
<CGS>                                            2,484
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      757
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    46
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   5
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (388)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         1
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (389)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (389)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.20)
        

</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

September 11, 2009 

s0901 

Order 

 

September 11, 2009 

138520 

ONEIDA CHARTER TOWNSHIP, 

Plaintiff, 

and 

DAVID M. LEE, ROBERT E. LUDLUM, 

LAWRENCE J. EMERY, and JAMES BRANDT, 

Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

v SC: 138520 

 COA: 277093 

Eaton CC: 05-001588-CZ 

CITY OF GRAND LEDGE, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 12, 2009 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in 

lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE the judgment of the Court of Appeals and 

we REMAND this case to the Eaton Circuit Court for reinstatement of the March 15, 

2007 order that dismissed the case with prejudice. MCL 123.141(2) exempts water 

departments that are not contractual customers of another water department and that serve 

less than 1% of the population of the state, such as the City of Grand Ledge, from the 

cost-based requirement of subsection (2). Contrary to the Court of Appeals ruling, that 

subsection does not indicate that the second sentence of MCL 123.141(2) somehow 

modifies or limits application of the exemption that appears in the subsequent sentence 

by defining “contractual customers” as wholesale contractual customers. Moreover, 

MCL 123.141(3) prohibits only “contractual customers as provided in subsection (2)” 

from charging retail rates in excess of the actual cost of providing service. Grand Ledge 

is not a contractual customer as provided in subsection (2), so subsection (3) is not 

applicable.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 26 (Tuesday, February 9, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 6378]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-2723]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER10-290-000]


New York Independent System Operator, Inc.; Notice of Filing

February 2, 2010.
    Take notice that on January 26, 2010, New York Independent System 
Operator, Inc. submitted its response to the Commission's deficiency 
letter issued on January 6, 2010, New York Independent System Operator, 
Inc., Deficiency Letter at 2, Docket No. ER10-290-000 (issued January 
6, 2010).
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. 
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of 
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#feb8bbacbdb1909297909bad8b8e8e918c8abe989b8c9dd0999188"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2b6d6e796864454742454e785e5b5b44595f6b4d4e5948054c445d">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on February 4, 2010.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-2723 Filed 2-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
**Exhibit      8.1**

**LIST      OF SUBSIDIARIES**

| **Name                of Subsidiary**            |   | **Country                of Incorporation**               |
|--------------------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------|
|                                             |   |                                                      |
| Radware                Inc.                 |   | New                Jersey, United States of America  |
| Radware                UK Limited           |   | United                Kingdom                        |
| Radware                France               |   | France                                               |
| Radware                Srl                  |   | Italy                                                |
| Radware                GmbH                 |   | Germany                                              |
| Nihon                Radware KK             |   | Japan                                                |
| Radware                Australia Pty. Ltd.  |   | Australia                                            |
| Radware                Singapore Pte. Ltd.  |   | Singapore                                            |
| Radware                Korea Ltd.           |   | Korea                                                |
| Radware                Canada Inc.          |   | Canada                                               |
| Radware                GmbH                 |   | Switzerland                                          |
| Radware                India Pvt. Ltd.      |   | India                                                |
| Covelight                Systems, Inc.(*)   |   | Delaware,                United States of America    |

----
<PAGE>


EXHIBIT 32.1

                      CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                                       OF
                         THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Ronald W. Pickett, Chief Executive Officer of Telkonet, Inc. (the "Company"),
certify that:

         (1) The Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the period
ended December 31, 2004 which this certification accompanies 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.



/s/ Ronald W. Pickett
---------------------
Ronald W. Pickett
Chief Executive Officer
March 30, 2005
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. WILLIAM H. MATTHEWS.

May 16, 1978.

Petition for certification denied.
Exhibit 10.07
                              Memorandum of understanding - commission fees

                                September 1, 1999

Via Fax

Mr. Fouad Behbehani
Chairman
Sayed Hamid Behbehani & Sons Co. W.L.L.
Dasman Complex, Block 3, 3rd Floor, Sharq
P.O. Box 3065, Safat 13021, Kuwait

                  Re:      Memorandum of Understanding

Dear Mr. Behbehani:

Per our telephone conversations, this letter will memorialize that as of October
1999, Sayed Hamid Behbehani & Sons Co. W.L.L. ("SHBC") will discontinue paying
Telesource International, Inc. ("Telesource") a monthly advance commission fee.

Furthermore,  as of October  1999,  SHBC will  purchase  goods and services from
Telesource  on a "need be"  basis.  Such  purchases  will be  subject  to a 7.5%
commission.

Finally,  as of October 1999, SHBC will pay Telesource's  reasonable  travel and
per diem expenses associated with any SHBC purchases from Telesource.

If the above  corresponds  to your  understanding,  kindly sign below and return
this letter to us by fax. As always,  should you have any questions or comments,
please do not hesitate to contact us. Telesource  appreciates the opportunity to
be of service to SHBC and will  continue to provide SHBC with  quality  products
and services at low prices.

                                            With Best Regards,


                                            Nidal Z. Zayed
                                            Director & Executive VP
Acknowledged:

-----------------------                     ---------------------
Fouad Behbehani                                               Date
Chairman, SHBC

                                      299
<PAGE>
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 6357** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. HAKIM ABDULAH RASHID, a/k/a Rodney Buchanan , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Florence

. R. Bryan Harwell , District Judge. ( 4:10

- cr
- 00941

- RBH

- 1 )

Submitted : June 26, 2014 Decided: Ju ne 30 , 2014

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Hakim Abdulah Rashid, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding preceden t in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Hakim Abdulah Rashid seeks to appeal the district
court’s order directing him to submit his filing in the proper

form . This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final
orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (20 12 ), and certain inter locutory and
collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (20 12 ); Fed. R. Civ. P.
54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 , 545

-
46 (1949). The order Rashid seeks to appeal is neither a final
order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral ord er. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately prese nted in the materials before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMIS SED
#### STATE v. BAKER

No. 616P01

Case below: 146 N.C. App. 110

Petition by defendant for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 18 December 2001.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the balance
sheet of CNL Income Fund XIV, Ltd. at March 31, 1998, and its statement of
income for the three months then ended and it qualified in its entirety by
reference to the Form 10Q of CNL Income Fund XIV, Ltd. for the three months
ended March 31, 1998.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       2,855,291<F2>
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,570
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                      25,909,395
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,380,008
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              41,173,203
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  40,033,315
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                41,173,203
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               980,475
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  161,490
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                972,288
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            972,288
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   972,288
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F2>Cash balance includes $1,532,620 in restricted cash.
<F1>Due to the nature of its industry, CNL Income Fund XIV, Ltd. has an
unclassified balance sheet; therefore no values are shown above for current
assets and current liabilities.
</FN>
        



</TABLE>
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

ELDON K. HURLEY; WILLIAM 

POPADICH; STEVEN K. BURGIN, 

 Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.

DYNO NOBEL, INC.; DYNO NOBEL 

DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION PLAN I, 

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 14-4124

(D.C. No. 2:08-CV-00415-RJS)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Appellant's Motion for Voluntary Dismissal is granted. See 10th Cir. R. 

27.3(A)(9) and 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

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

January 20, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 14-4124 Document: 01019371916 Date Filed: 01/20/2015 Page: 1
**Exhibit 31.1**

**SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION**

**Of Interim Chief Executive Officer**

In connection with the Annual Report of eDiets.com, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005, as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Robert T. Hamilton, the Interim Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that: 

1. I have reviewed the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2005; 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsiblefor 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, includingits consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this 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 endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

(c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal 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 tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

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

(a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting 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 control over financial reporting. 

Date: March 30, 2006
#### KALMAN FLOOR COMPANY, INC. v. JOSEPH L. MUSCARELLE, INC. KALMAN FLOOR COMPANY, INC. v. AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION.

June 19, 1984.

Petition for certification granted.
EXHIBIT 99.1



                     STATUS OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT


     As  of  the  date  of  this filing, DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP has not given the
company  permission  to include its Independent Auditors' Report dated March 20,
2002  in  this  10-K/A  of  Telzuit  Medical Technologies, Inc., formerly Taylor
Madison  Corp.  (File  No. 001-15034).   With regard to financial information in
this  filing for fiscal year ended December 31, 2001, you should also review the
financial  statements  (including  the  footnotes)  in the Independent Auditors'
Report  dated  March  20,  2002 in Telzuit Medical Technologies, Inc.'s 10-K for
fiscal  year  ended  December  31,  2001, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission  on  April  1,  2002.

<PAGE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Agim Mulosmanaj, Appellant.

[786 NYS2d 915]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Harold Silverman, J.), rendered June 12, 2002, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of seven years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning credibility *(see People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94 [1903]). Defendant was convicted of second-degree robbery under Penal Law § 160.10 (3), which involves forcible stealing of a motor vehicle. The fact that the jury acquitted him of first-degree robbery under Penal Law § 160.15 (4) does not warrant a different result *(see People v Rayam,*94 NY2d 557 [2000]). In any event, on this evidence the jury could have reasonably concluded that defendant made a threat of force that fell short of displaying what appeared to be a firearm.

Defendant’s challenge to the court’s charge is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the court’s charge, read as a whole, clearly apprised the jury that robbery required an intent to permanently deprive the victim of property, in that “[t]he court defined robbery as necessarily incorporating larceny, and ultimately defined larceny with explicit reference to the definitions of ‘deprive’ and ‘appropriate’ set forth in the *390Penal Law” *(People v Rodriguez,*1 AD3d 150, 151 [2003], *lv denied*1 NY3d 579 [2003]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.

We have considered and rejected defendant’s other contentions. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Marlow, Ellerin, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED December 14, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-51218 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ARIEL RODRIGUEZ-ARMENDARIZ, also known as Mario Rodriguez, also known as Joseph Armando Ramirez, also known as Iran Martinez-Collaso, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. MO-03-CR-66-ALL

-------------------- Before KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Counsel appointed to represent Ariel Rodriguez-Armendariz has moved for leave to withdraw from this appeal and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Our independent review of the brief, Rodriguez’s response, and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the
APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.