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

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         4723000                 4948000
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 13253000                 8571000
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (604000)                (604000)
<INVENTORY>                                    5771000                 5881000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              23290000                19613000
<PP&E>                                         5281000                 5795000
<DEPRECIATION>                               (1367000)               (2039000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                28553000                24384000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         16085000                11706000
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                          9000                    8000
<OTHER-SE>                                    12187000                12579000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  28553000                24384000
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              21610000                37128000
<CGS>                                         14373000                25561000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 25223000                37349000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (118000)                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (1964000)                  657000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (75000)                (265000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (2039000)                  392000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (2039000)                  392000
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (2.58)                     .49
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.58)                     .49


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 204 (Wednesday, October 22, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 63062]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-25089]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 73

[Docket No. FDA-2014-C-1552]


Colorcon, Inc.; Filing of Color Additive Petition

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of petition.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing 
that we have filed a petition, submitted by Colorcon, Inc., proposing 
that the color additive regulations be amended to provide for the safe 
use of spirulina extract as a color additive in coating formulations 
applied to dietary supplement and drug tablets and capsules.

DATES: The color additive petition was filed on September 22, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Molly A. Harry, Center for Food Safety 
and Applied Nutrition (HFS-265), Food and Drug Administration, 5100 
Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740-3835, 240-402-1075.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under section 721(d)(1) of the Federal Food, 
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 379e(d)(1)), we are giving notice 
that we have filed a color additive petition (CAP 4C0300), submitted by 
Colorcon, Inc., 275 Ruth Rd., Harleysville, PA 19438. The petition 
proposes to amend the color additive regulations in 21 CFR part 73 
Listing of Color Additives Exempt From Certification to provide for the 
safe use of spirulina extract as a color additive in coating 
formulations applied to dietary supplement and drug tablets and 
capsules.
    We have determined under 21 CFR 25.32(r) that this action is of a 
type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant 
effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental 
assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

    Dated: October 16, 2014.
Dennis M. Keefe,
Director, Office of Food Additive Safety, Center for Food Safety and 
Applied Nutrition.
[FR Doc. 2014-25089 Filed 10-21-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001067701
<NAME> United Rentals, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          31,715
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  609,548
<ALLOWANCES>                                    59,745
<INVENTORY>                                    142,078
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       2,822,257
<DEPRECIATION>                                 621,075
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,265,150
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                      2,801,333
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          300,000
<PREFERRED>                                          5
<COMMON>                                           703
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,506,277
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,265,150
<SALES>                                      2,167,941
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,167,941
<CGS>                                          443,042
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,349,455
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (796)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                29,915
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             167,268
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                239,318
<INCOME-TAX>                                    99,317
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            140,001
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   140,001
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.96
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.49


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 513 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 513

   To exempt certain contracts entered into by the government of the 
  District of Columbia from review by the Council of the District of 
                               Columbia.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 4, 1997

   Mr. Davis of Virginia (for himself and Ms. Norton) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Government 
                          Reform and Oversight

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To exempt certain contracts entered into by the government of the 
  District of Columbia from review by the Council of the District of 
                               Columbia.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``District of Columbia Council 
Contract Review Reform Act of 1997''.

SEC. 2. EXEMPTION OF CERTAIN CONTRACTS FROM COUNCIL REVIEW.

    (a) In General.--Section 451 of the District of Columbia Self-
Government and Governmental Reorganization Act (sec. 1-1130, D.C. Code) 
is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(d) Exemption for Certain Contracts.--The requirements of this 
section shall not apply with respect to any of the following contracts:
            ``(1) Any contract entered into by the Washington 
        Convention Center Authority for preconstruction activities, 
        project management, design, or construction.
            ``(2) Any contract entered into by the District of Columbia 
        Water and Sewer Authority established pursuant to the Water and 
        Sewer Authority Establishment and Department of Public Works 
        Reorganization Act of 1996, other than contracts for the sale 
        or lease of the Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment Plant.
            ``(3) At the option of the Council, any contract for a 
        highway improvement project carried out under title 23, United 
        States Code.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply with respect to contracts entered into on or after the date of 
the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jai Jackson,

Plaintiff,

v.

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC

Civil Action No. CV-16-00552-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Shaw Cowart, LLP

(Name of plaintiff’s attorney or unrepresented plaintiff)

I have received your request to waive service of a summons in this action along with a copy of the complaint, two 

copies of this waiver form, and a prepaid means of returning one signed copy of the form to you.

I, or the entity I represent, agree to save the expense of serving a summons and complaint in this case.

I understand that I, or the entity I represent, will keep all defenses or objections to the lawsuit, the court’s 

jurisdiction, and the venue of the action, but that I waive any objections to the absence of a summons or of service.

I also understand that I, or the entity I represent, must file and serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 within 

60 days from 3/1/2016, the date when this request was sent (or 90 days if it was sent outside the United States). If I fail to 

do so, a default judgment will be entered against me or the entity I represent.

Date: March 2, 2016 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Signature of the attorney or unrepresented party

 Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc.

Printed name of party waiving service

of summons

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599)

Printed Name

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363

Address

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com

E-mail Address

(404) 322-6155

Telephone number

Duty to Avoid Unnecessary Expenses of Serving a Summons

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires certain defendants to cooperate in saving unnecessary expenses of serving a 

summons and complaint. A defendant who is located in the United States and who fails to return a signed waiver of service requested by a plaintiff 

located in the United States will be required to pay the expenses of service, unless the defendant shows good cause for the failure. 

“Good cause” does not include a belief that the lawsuit is groundless, or that it has been brought in an improper venue, or that the court has 

no jurisdiction over this matter or over the defendant or the defendant’s property. 

If the waiver is signed and returned, you can still make these and all other defenses and objections, but you cannot object to the absence of 

a summons or of service. 

If you waive service, then you must, within the time specified on the waiver form, serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 on the 

plaintiff and file a copy with the court. By signing and returning the waiver form, you are allowed more time to respond than if a summons had been 

served.

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 973 Filed 03/04/16 Page 1 of 1
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Martha Ventura, Appellant, v Gotham Per Diem, Inc., et al., Respondents. Workers' Compensation Board, Respondent.

[787 NYS2d 495]

Rose, J. Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed August 15, 2003, which ruled that claimant did not sustain a causally related injury and denied her claim for workers’ compensation benefits.

Claimant, a home health aide, injured her neck and back while lifting a patient. She filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits, which was controverted by her employer. Hearings were thereafter conducted and the testimony of claimant was scheduled. However, because claimant’s attorney was unable to attend the hearing, claimant’s deposition was taken instead. Upon considering only claimant’s deposition testimony and documentary evidence in the file, the Workers’ Compensation Board concluded that claimant did not sustain a causally related injury and disallowed the claim. Claimant appeals, arguing, among other things, that the Board should not have relied on the transcript of her deposition testimony because she did not have an opportunity to review the transcript as required by CPLR 3116 (a).

*754Initially, we note that Workers’ Compensation Law § 121 specifically provides that “[t]he . . . board may cause depositions of witnesses residing within or without the state to be taken in the manner prescribed by law for like depositions in civil actions in supreme court.” Thus, the statute clearly contemplates compliance with the CPLR with respect to the manner in which depositions are conducted in workers’ compensation proceedings *(see Matter of Washington v Montefiore Hosp.,*7 AD3d 945, 947 [2004]). CPLR 3116 (a) requires that, before its use, the transcript of the deposition of a witness must be provided to the witness for his or her review and signature, and any changes in form or substance desired by the witness shall be recorded *(see Roberts v Ausable Chasm Co.,*47 AD2d 979, 980 [1975]). Although we agree that CPLR 3116 (a) should have been complied with, we find the omission not to be error because claimant has identified no changes to her testimony that would have been made if she had been given the opportunity nor has she otherwise shown that any prejudice resulted from this procedural irregularity *(see Heliodore v State of New York,*305 AD2d 708, 709 [2003]). Claimant’s other contentions have been considered and found to provide no basis for disturbing the Board’s decision.

Crew III, J.P., Peters, Carpinello and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
----

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SS.1350, 

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO 

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

 

In connection with the annual report, of Zi Corporation (the"Company") on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, PhilipBlair Mullin, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that: 

(1)   The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and 
(2)   The information containedin the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company. 
Date: March 30, 2007. 

 
 */s/ Philip Blair    Mullin* Philip Blair Mullin, Chief Financial    Officer
#### Samuel Twyman’s Exors. et al *v.*L. B. Walker.

Adverse Possession — Complicity Patents — Possession Within the Interference.

Appellants brough suit in equity against the appellee to quiet their title to a tract of land embraced by a patent issued in 1785. The appellee claiming a part of the land under a patent issued in 1827, resisted the relief sought. Held, that as the appellee failed to show that he had had the actual possession of the land within the interference for ¿more than twenty years, appellants claims should prevail.

APPEAL FROM HARDIN CIRCUIT COURT.

April 15, 1869.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Hardin:

This suit in equity was brought by the executors and heirs of Samuel Twyman, deceased, against the appellee, Lewis B. Walter, to quiet their title to a tract of land embraced by a boundary of 680 acres patented to John Reed in 1785, from which 'through a succession of conveyances, the plaintiffs derived their title.

The defendants claiming part of the land under a patent for 240 acres issued to Joseph Vanmeter and Elander Best in 1827, resisted the relief sought by the plaintiffs, setting up in his answer that he was equitably entitled to the land under a bond from Best to him for one moiety, and a like bond executed by Vanmeter to one Briscoe for the other and assigned to the defendant, which bonds he alleged were lost, or had been accidentally burned.

The evidence, we think, authorizes the conclusion that Reed’s patent covers the land in controversy.

The defendant failed to prove the execution or destruction of the bonds under which he claims, or to establish a continued adverse occupancy of the land in controversy for twenty years before this suit was brought; but it appears that for more than twenty years he had been in the actual possession of part of the patent boundary of Vanmeter and Best claiming it all, including that which seems to have interferred with Reed’s patent, and had *644gotten himself logs and other timber from it from time to time, and built a house on it, which was occupied by his tenant Slack, and perhaps others, for some five or six years, when the house was burned. It does not appear how much of the land was in actual occupancy with the house; and it sufficiently appears that during the same time the plaintiffs and those under whom they claim were in actual occupancy of part of their tract claiming it ail.

*Wintersmith, for appellants.*

Cofer, *for appellee.*

The circuit .court expressing the opinion that the land in controversy was not within the boundary to which the plaintiffs had title, dismissed the petition.

Nor the reasons already stated, we do not concur in the conclusion of the court.

Wherefore, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded, with directions to render a judgment for the plaintiffs conformable with this opinion.
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 205 (Thursday, October 23, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63397-63398]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-25340]


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

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION


Sunshine Act Meeting

    Pursuant to the provisions of the ``Government in the Sunshine 
Act'' (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit 
Insurance Corporation's Board of Directors met in open session at 10:00 
a.m. on Tuesday, October 21, 2014, to consider the following matters:

Summary Agenda

    Disposition of minutes of previous Board of Directors' Meetings.
    Memorandum and resolution re: Proposed Rule to Revise 12 CFR Part 
340, ``Restrictions on Sales of Assets by the Federal Deposit Insurance 
Corporation''.
    Memorandum and resolution re: Joint Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
for the Purpose of Implementing the Escrow Requirements of the 
Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act.
    Memorandum and resolution re: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
Regarding the Retention of Records of a Covered Financial Company and 
of the FDIC as Receiver pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act.
    Memorandum and resolution re: Designated Reserve Ratio for 2015.
    Memorandum and resolution re: Final Rule regarding Part 390 Subpart 
U and Part 335--Securities of State Nonmember Banks and State Savings 
Associations.

[[Page 63398]]

    Summary reports, status reports, reports of the Office of Inspector 
General, and reports of actions taken pursuant to authority delegated 
by the Board of Directors.

Discussion Agenda

    Memorandum and resolution re: Final Rule: Credit Risk Retention.
    Briefing re: Update of Projected Deposit Insurance Fund Losses, 
Income, and Reserve Ratios for the Restoration Plan.
    In calling the meeting, the Board determined, on motion of Vice 
Chairman Thomas M. Hoenig, seconded by Director Richard Cordray 
(Director, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau), concurred in by 
Director Thomas J. Curry (Comptroller of the Currency), Director 
Jeremiah O. Norton (Appointive), and Chairman Martin J. Gruenberg, that 
Corporation business required its consideration of the matters on less 
than seven days' notice to the public; and that no earlier notice of 
the meeting than that previously provided on October 16, 2014, was 
practicable.
    The meeting was held in the Board Room temporarily located on the 
fourth floor of the FDIC Building located at 550 17th Street NW., 
Washington, DC.

    Dated: October 21, 2014.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Robert E. Feldman,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-25340 Filed 10-21-14; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Cheryl Warner","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/cmwarner\/","title":"NASA\u2019s Global Science Hackathon Attracts Thousands of Participants","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"3HH8XcPCbz\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/general\/nasas-global-science-hackathon-attracts-thousands-of-participants\/\">NASA\u2019s Global Science Hackathon Attracts Thousands of Participants<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/general\/nasas-global-science-hackathon-attracts-thousands-of-participants\/embed\/#?secret=3HH8XcPCbz\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA\u2019s Global Science Hackathon Attracts Thousands of Participants” — NASA\" data-secret=\"3HH8XcPCbz\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/microsoftteams-image-5.png?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":338}