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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         240,789
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  894,118
<ALLOWANCES>                                    40,000
<INVENTORY>                                    168,022
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,465,224
<PP&E>                                       1,008,154
<DEPRECIATION>                                 852,060
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,483,734
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,702,456
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       498,827
<OTHER-SE>                                  (2,056,733)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,483,734
<SALES>                                      3,747,816
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,747,816
<CGS>                                        2,149,712
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,149,712
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,463,552
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             103,713
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 30,839
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             30,839
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    30,839
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.01


</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Yancy D. Cook, Appellant.

[975 NYS2d 505]

Stein, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Saratoga County (Scarano, J), rendered July 19, 2012, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of aggravated driving while intoxicated and driving while intoxicated (two counts).

In May 2011, defendant was driving an all-terrain vehicle with his seven-year-old son as a passenger. A State Trooper approached defendant, detected an odor of alcohol and observed that defendant had glassy eyes. Defendant admitted to the trooper that he had been drinking alcohol and subsequently failed multiple field sobriety tests. As a result, defendant was arrested and transported to the police station, where a breathalyzer test revealed that defendant had a blood alcohol content of .12%. Defendant thereafter was charged with driving while intoxicated (two counts) and aggravated driving while intoxicated. Following a jury trial, defendant was found guilty as charged and was subsequently sentenced to four months in jail and a three-year conditional discharge, requiring him to install an ignition interlock device. Defendant now appeals, and we affirm.

Defendant’s sole argument on appeal is that his 6th Amendment right to confront witnesses was violated when County Court allowed the admission of the calibration and maintenance records for the breathalyzer machine without requiring the People to call as witnesses the individuals who signed those rec*1170ords. The maintenance records were prepared by employees of the State Police Forensic Investigation Center and were kept in the regular course of business. While defendant argues that the records were testimonial in nature because their purpose was to prove an element of the crime at trial, the Court of Appeals has recently rejected this argument and held “that documents pertaining to the routine inspection, maintenance and calibration of breathalyzer machines are nontestimonial under *Crawford [v Washington*(541 US 36, 53-54 [2004])] and its progeny” *(People v Pealer,*20 NY3d 447, 456 [2013], *cert denied*571 US —, 134 S Ct 105 [2013]; *see People v Menegan,*107 AD3d 1166, 1168 [2013]; *People v Hulbert,*93 AD3d 953, 954 [2012]).* Accordingly, the admission of these records did not violate defendant’s rights under the Confrontation Clause.

Peters, PJ., McCarthy and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

*

 To the extent that defendant argues that two United States Supreme Court *cases*— Melendez-Diaz *v Massachusetts*(557 US 305 [2009]) and *Bullcoming v New Mexico*(564 US —, 131 S Ct 2705 [2011]) — “trump[ ]” the Court of Appeals’ holding in *Pealer,*we note that both *Melendez-Diaz*and *Bullcoming*were explicitly addressed in *Pealer (People v Pealer,*20 NY3d at 454-455).
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1973 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1973

To provide for a limitation on availability of Department of Health and 
 Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Buildings 
                  and Facilities for fiscal year 2024.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2023

Mr. Biggs (for himself, Mr. Rosendale, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Good of Virginia, 
   Mr. Roy, and Mr. Crane) introduced the following bill; which was 
            referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for a limitation on availability of Department of Health and 
 Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Buildings 
                  and Facilities for fiscal year 2024.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN 
              SERVICES, CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION 
              BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for Department of Health and 
Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Buildings 
and Facilities for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed $30,000,000.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 23.02**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference inRegistration Statement Nos. 333-87505, 333-92159, 333-93591, 333-32460, 333-35730, 333-64552, 333-59842, 333-55822, 333-104711, 333-113914 and 333-136705 on Form S-8 and Nos. 333-113899, 333-110248, 333-77068, 333-68342 and 333-46624 on Form S-3 ofour report dated August 26, 2005 relating to the 2004 consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of Kana Software, Inc. and subsidiaries, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Kana Software, Inc. for the yearended December 31, 2006. 

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP 

San Jose, California 

March 30, 2007
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 180 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 180

 To promote accountability and transparency in future executive orders.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 9, 2023

   Mr. Mann introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To promote accountability and transparency in future executive orders.

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

SECTION 1. NOTIFICATION RESPECTING CERTAIN EXECUTIVE ORDERS.

    (a) In General.--Not later than 30 days before issuing a qualifying 
executive order, the President shall transmit to the Congress, and make 
publicly available, a notification with respect to such executive 
order. Such notification shall contain--
            (1) the text of the executive order;
            (2) the Federal law or laws affected by the executive order 
        that is the subject of the notification;
            (3) how the President is working within the parameters 
        specified in Federal law and the Constitution;
            (4) the means by which the executive order will be 
        accomplished, including through any related Federal agencies or 
        departments; and
            (5) a comprehensive list of organizations, businesses, and 
        other parties or entities the President, or the President's 
        designee, engaged with prior to the issuance of such executive 
        order.
    (b) Reports.--Not later than 6 months after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, and every 12 months thereafter, the President 
shall submit to the Congress a report on the outcome of each qualifying 
executive order issued during the period covered by the report.
    (c) Qualifying Executive Order.--The term ``qualifying executive 
order'' means any executive order (including an executive order that 
revokes or nullifies a previous executive order) issued on or after the 
date of the enactment of this Act, relating to the energy policy of the 
United States.
                                 <all>
```
#### Elizabeth Dimond, Appellant, v Robert Dimond, Respondent.

[963 NYS2d 368]

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Santorelli, J.), dated March 5, 2012, as granted the defendant’s motion, in effect, to compel the plaintiff to cooperate with the defendant’s purchase of the marital residence.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

££[B]efore some alteration in the marital relationship, courts lack the authority, absent the consent of the parties, to direct the sale of the marital residence owned by the parties as tenants by the entirety” *{Adamo v Adamo,*18 AD3d 407, 408 [2005]). However, ££[o]nce the parties to a matrimonial action have consented to the sale of real property owned by the parties as tenants by the entirety, that consent cannot be unilaterally withdrawn” *{Janke v Janke,*2005 NY Mise LEXIS 3305, *5 [Sup Ct, Nassau County 2005]; *see e.g. Moran v Moran,*77 AD3d 443, 444 [2010]). Furthermore, ££[a] stipulation of settlement in *892a matrimonial action is a contract subject to principles of contract interpretation . . . Where the stipulation is clear and unambiguous on its face, the intent of the parties must be gleaned from the four corners of the instrument, and not from extrinsic evidence” *(Perry v Perry,*13 AD3d 508, 508-509 [2004]). The terms thereof “operate as contractual obligations binding on the parties” *{Ackermann v Ackermann,*82 AD3d 1020, 1020 [2011]).

Here, the parties entered into a so-ordered stipulation which unambiguously provided that the marital residence was to be sold. Nothing in the stipulation expressly precluded either party from buying the marital residence.

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit.

Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion, in effect, to compel the plaintiff to cooperate with the defendant’s purchase of the marital residence *{see e.g. Markson v Markson,*139 AD2d 705, 706 [1988]).

Skelos, J.E, Leventhal, Austin and Sgroi, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                       5,708,000
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             2,190,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 23,892,000
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                     75,839,000
<ALLOWANCE>                                    922,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             114,326,000
<DEPOSITS>                                  94,829,000
<SHORT-TERM>                                10,000,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          1,156,000
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,336,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             114,326,000
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              6,389,000
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            1,390,000
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               141,000
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             7,920,000
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           3,462,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,804,000
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        4,116,000
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  190,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              3,227,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,518,000
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   1,518,000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   994,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .99
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .99
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.40
<LOANS-NON>                                     54,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                    16,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                920,573
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               880,000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  162,000
<RECOVERIES>                                    14,000
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              922,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           922,000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Small Business Administration

      ( print page 77589)    
Notice is hereby given that Escalate Capital Partners SBIC I, L.P., 300 W. 6th Street, Suite 2250, Austin, TX 78701, a Federal Licensee under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended (the “Act”), in connection with the financing of a small concern, has sought an exemption under Section 312 of the Act and Section 107.730, Financings which Constitute Conflicts of Interest of the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) Rules and Regulations (13 CFR 107.730). Escalate Capital Partners SBIC I, L.P. seeks to provide debt financing to Donuts, Inc., 10500 NE 8th Street, Suite 350, Bellevue, WA 98004. The proceeds will be used to refinance existing debt, buy top level domain names, and for general corporate purposes, including new hiring.

The financing is brought within the purview of § 107.730(a)(1) of the Regulations because Austin Ventures, an Associate of Escalate Capital Partners SBIC I, L.P., owns more than ten percent of Donuts, Inc.; therefore this transaction is considered financing an Associate requiring SBA prior written exemption.

Notice is hereby given that any interested person may submit written comments on the transaction, within fifteen days of the date of this publication, to the Associate Administrator for the Office of Investment and Innovation, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street SW., Washington, DC 20416.

Dated: December 17, 2014.

Javier E. Saade,

Associate Administrator for Office of Investment and Innovation.

[FR Doc. 2014-30148 Filed 12-23-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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 Superior Galleries, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2005, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Silvano DiGenova, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

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


                                       By: /s/ Silvano DiGenova
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Silvano DiGenova, Chief Executive Officer
                                       September 28, , 2006



         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

         This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
are not to be incorporated by reference into the Report or any other filing of
the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any
general incorporation language in such filing.
#### Commonwealth, et al., *v.*M. N. DePane.

Criminal Law — Money as Bail.

Money may fie paid to tfie trustee of the jury fund, and a certificate of such payment fie filed with the clerk in lieu of hail in a criminal case. The money thus deposited belongs to the defendant where he pays it, and fiy surrendering himself into custody at any time he is entitled to the money and the clerk must pay it out on his order.

*244APPEAL FROM LINCOLN CIRCUIT COURT.

December 10, 1874.

Opinion by

Judge Peters :

The 84th section of the Criminal Code provides that wherever the defendant is admitted to bail in a specified sum, he may deposit said sum with the trustee of the jury fundi of the county in which the trial is directed to be had, and take from the trustee a certificate of. such deposit, upon delivering which to the officer in whose custody he is, he shall be discharged.

This is the only law, of which we are aware, which authorizes the discharge of prisoners from custody by a deposit of a sum of money. That (deposit must be of the sum specified, and the officer having the prisoner in custody is only authorized to discharge him upon the delivery to him of the certificate of the trustee of the jury fund that the deposit is made with him.

Adams might, at any time after the money had been deposited with the clerk of the circuit court, have required the surrender of the money to h'imi by said clerk. The clerk had no legal right to retain it, and when he received it, he held it subject to the order of Adams, the defendant; and the commonwealth acquired no claim on it whatever. The clerk was not its agent; by receiving the money he became the debtor to Adams for the amount, and Adams, by his assignment, could have transferred his right to his assignee, and a creditor would attach it and have it applied to1 the satisfaction of his debt. This appellee did to indemnify him for the horses stolen from him by Adams, the owner thereof. The commonwealth has manifested no right to the money, and the judgment in favor of appellee has prejudiced none of its rights or of the rights of Miller, the custodian.

The amendment to .Sec. 61, of the Criminal Code, confers the power on the clerk of the circuit court, after the term, to- take the bail in the absence of the judge; and after there has been a commitment by the court, and the amount of bail fixed, in such cases the clerk of the circuit court may take the bail in the absence of the judge. This is the extent of his power, and it is as logical to say that the trustee of the jury fund could take the bail under this authority given to the clerk, as to say the latter could receive the deposit and certify the fact to the officer having the defendant in custody, and thereby effect his discharge.

*245
      *George W. Dunlap, John Rodman, for appellants.*

*Breckenridge & Fox, for appellee.*

Wherefore, as the judgment is neither prejudicial to Miller nor' the commonwealth, let it be *affirmed.*
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

NOELLE MILESKI, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CA 14-0514-C

GULF HEALTH HOSPITALS, INC., :

d/b/a THOMAS HOSPITAL,

:

Defendant.

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the memorandum opinion and order entered on this date, it 

is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the defendant’s motion for 

summary judgment (Doc. 30) be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The 

defendant’s motion is GRANTED with respect to plaintiff’s FMLA interference claims

and her failure to accommodate claim(s) under the ADA, plaintiff having voluntarily 

dismissed her ADA accommodation claim(s). The defendant’s motion is DENIED with 

respect to plaintiff’s ADA unlawful termination claim and her FMLA retaliation claim. 

DONE this the 31st day of March, 2016.

s/WILLIAM E. CASSADY 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00514-C Document 51 Filed 03/31/16 Page 1 of 1