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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                       1,456,122
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   74,404
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,412,048
<PP&E>                                         175,239
<DEPRECIATION>                                  17,246
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,466,251
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,908,617
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     3,752,555
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,805,079
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,466,251
<SALES>                                      4,341,216
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,341,216
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,682,994
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,922
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (344,700)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (132,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (212,700)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (212,700)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.02)
        

</TABLE>
VERBAL AGREEMENT

Dated May 15, 2014



This Verbal Agreement ("Agreement") is made between Anna Ioannou, sole officer and director of Makkanotti Group Corp. ("Director") and Makkanotti Group Corp. ("Corporation"). 


This Agreement is witness therefore that Director has verbally agreed to loan the Corporation needed funds, in the amount not more then $4,032 ("Loan"), which is necessary for the registration and operation processes of the Corporation. 


The Loan is unsecured and does not bear any interest. The Loan does not have the repayment date and other provisions.




/s/ Anna Ioannou

Sole officer and director of Makkanotti Group Corp. 

Anna Ioannou




Page 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED BALANCE SHEET AND CONDENSED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOUND IN THE
COMPANY'S 10-QSB FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2000, AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND ACCOMPANYING
FOOTNOTES.
</LEGEND>


<CAPTION>

<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                  MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                            200,905
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                     270,776
<ALLOWANCES>                            0
<INVENTORY>                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  472,819
<PP&E>                            947,966
<DEPRECIATION>                    295,800
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  1,149,985
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             544,948
<BONDS>                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                          105,481
<OTHER-SE>                        207,606
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    1,149,985
<SALES>                           210,370
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  287,433
<CGS>                             106,831
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     106,831
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  124,529
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 26,287
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    29,786
<INCOME-TAX>                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                29,786
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                       29,786
<EPS-BASIC>                        0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                        0.00



</TABLE>
KMT 6.30.2015 10K Ex 10.41






                                            
Exhibit 10.41




SCHEDULE OF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS WHO HAVE ENTERED INTO THE FORM OF OFFICER'S EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT 10.40
NAME 
Judith L. Bacchus
Robert J. Clemens
Peter Dragich 
Jeswant Gill
#### Andres Restrepo, Appellant, v Yonkers Racing Corporation, Inc., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.

[964 NYS2d 17]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul Wooten, J.), entered August 8, 2011, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiffs motion for'partial summary judgment on the issue of liability on his claims under Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) to the extent it is predicated on a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (b) (1), unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and summary judgment granted to plaintiff on these claims.

Plaintiff was injured when an access door in the floor of the soffit, or attic, where he was working opened downward, causing him to fall approximately 12 to 13 feet to the floor below. Plaintiff, who was removing asbestos from the pipes in that area, was unaware of the door and did not see the door because it was covered by plastic. The record shows that the work area, which plaintiff described as an attic containing air conditioning, electrical cables and pipes, was above the first floor of the building. Plaintiff gained access to the attic, not by the door that caused his accident, but by using a ladder and climbing through a hole that had been opened to that area for the purpose of the asbestos removal. The access door, through which plaintiff fell, was a downward opening door and it was intended to be used only to gain access, from the first floor, to the pipes, valves, etc. that were contained in the attic. As explained by the general contractor Tishman’s first vice president, access doors are placed to be used to access something that is right above the door, e.g., a valve; one opens the door and reaches to access the valve.

Under these circumstances, there is no genuine issue of fact as to whether it was foreseeable that the door, which was not intended for use as a floor, but instead intended only to enable one to reach up from the floor below, would fail when traversed upon by plaintiff *(compare Espinosa v Azure Holdings II, LP,*58 AD3d 287, 293 [1st Dept 2008] [triable issue as to whether sidewalk collapse was foreseeable]; *Jones v 414 Equities LLC,*57 AD3d 65, 80 [1st Dept 2008] [plaintiff failed to make prima facie showing that collapse of floor was foreseeable risk]). This is especially so where plaintiff was unaware of the door, and therefore could not take any steps to avoid it. Accordingly, plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim.

*541Nor do we perceive any triable issue as to whether the access door was sufficiently substantial or adequately fastened in place to guard the hazardous opening. Thus, summary judgment based on a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (b) (1) (i) is warranted.

Concur—Andrias, J.R, Saxe, DeGrasse, Abdus-Salaam and Feinman, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.1

SECTION 906 SARBANES OXLEY CERTIFICATION

                            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 Quarterly Report of New Century Companies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
David Duquette, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


November 14, 2006                       /s/ David Duquette
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Name:  David Duquette
                                        Title: Chief Executive Officer and
                                               Chief Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906 has been provided to Company and will be retained by
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
#### Robert Kramer et al., Plaintiffs, v City of New York, Respondent, and Alberto Auto, Inc., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant. Frank Bertolotti, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.

[826 NYS2d 213]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Sallie Manzanet, J.), entered July 28, 2005, which denied defendant and third-party plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on its common-law indemnification claims against defendant City of New York and third-party defendant Frank Bertolotti, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

*176This is an action to recover damages for personal injuries arising out of a one-car collision which occurred while third-party defendant, Frank Bertolotti, a New York City police officer, was operating a motor vehicle owned by defendant and third-party plaintiff Alberto Auto, Inc. Plaintiff, Officer Robert Kramer, was sitting in the front seat with Officer Bertolotti and the officers were taking the vehicle to the precinct for “vouchering” after its operator had been arrested for driving with a suspended license.

Officer Bertolotti testified that, while taking the vehicle to the precinct, he noticed that the vehicle had been “modified.” The modifications included, inter alia, a stiffness in the steering wheel and a softness to the brake pedal, signifying that the pedal was well worn.

Defendant and third-party plaintiff Alberto Auto, Inc., as the owner of the vehicle, seeks common-law indemnification from Officer Bertolotti, as the “active tortfeasor,” and the City of New York, under the doctrine of respondeat superior, for any damages recovered from it by plaintiffs.

Because factual issues remain as to whether the subject vehicle was in fact “modified” by Alberto Auto, Inc., it is not possible to conclude at this juncture that the accident was not caused by negligence on Alberto Auto’s part or that the accident was attributable to negligence by Officer Bertolotti. Accordingly, summary judgment upon Alberto Auto’s common-law indemnification claims was properly denied *(see Lewis-Moore v Cloverleaf Tower Hous. Dev. Fund Corp.,*26 AD3d 292 [2006]). Concur— Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Nardelli, Sweeny and McGuire, JJ.
#### Diane M. Mann, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Charles E. Mann, Deceased, Respondent, v Town of Camillus et al., Defendants, and Western Area Volunteer Emergency Services, Inc., Appellant.

[825 NYS2d 651]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (John V. Centra, J.), entered April 21, 2006. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied that part of the motion of defendant Western Area Volunteer Emergency Services, Inc. for summary judgment dismissing the wrongful death claim against it.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs. Present—Gorski, J.P., Martoche, Smith, Green and Pine, JJ.
Order entered June 5 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas** No. 05 - 13 - 00745 - CV No. 05 - 13 - 00746 - CV IN RE SENRICK WILKERSON, Relator On Original Proceeding from the Criminal District Court No. 3 Dallas County, Texas Trial Cour t Cause No s . W10 - 01183 - J , W10 - 01184 - J 

### O RDER Before Justices Moseley, Francis, and Fillmore Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DENY relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. We ORDER that relator bear the costs of th e original proceeding s . /s/ JIM MOSELEY JUSTICE
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determ ined th at this opinio n should not be published and is no t 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 18, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________________ No. 05-41629

__________________________ RHONDA MILLER, Plaint iff- Appellant,
versus ELECTRONIC DATA SYSTEMS CORP; METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE CO, Defendants-Appellees.

___________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the Eastern District of Texas

6:04-CV-418

___________________________________________________ Before KING, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *

AFFIRMED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 47.6.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 14, 2022

No. 04-22-00194-CV

Jerry A. GUZZETTA,

Appellant

v.

BRIMHALL LQ, LLC d/b/a La Quinta Hotel,

Appellee

From the 285th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012-CI-14775

Honorable John D. Gabriel Jr., Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant has requested eight additional days to file his opening brief. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 38.6(d). 

Appellant’s motion is granted. The brief is due on November 18, 2022. See id.

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 14th day of November, 2022.

___________________________________

Michael A. Cruz, 

Clerk of Court
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2268 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for US Department 

of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Conservation 

Operations 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 Agriculture 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for US 

Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Conservation Operations for fiscal year 

2024. 

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


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2268 IH

1 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR 

2 US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, NAT3 URAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE, 

4 CONSERVATION OPERATIONS FOR FISCAL 

5 YEAR 2024. 

6 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

7 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise avail8 able for US Department of Agriculture, Natural Re9 sources Conservation Service, Conservation Operations for 

10 fiscal year 2024 may not exceed $819,492,000. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
PROMISSORY NOTE

Principal amount: $200,000                                   Date: April 2, 2001

FOR VALUE RECEIVED,  the undersigned hereby jointly and severally promise to pay
to the order of Stratabase the sum of Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($). Said sum
shall be paid in the following manner:

o        Upon sale of all or a portion  of the  undersigned's  stock  options in
         Stratabase,  proceeds shall immediately be payable to Stratabase, to be
         applied to the unpaid balance.

o        Outstanding  balance  shall be paid in full no later  than  April  1st,
         2003.

This note may be prepaid, at any time, in whole or in part, without penalty.

This note shall be at the option of any holder thereof be  immediately  due an d
payable upon the occurrence of any of the following:

1) Failure to make any payment due  hereunder  within on or before its due date.
2) Upon the death or incapacity of any of the undersigned.

The  undersigned  and all other  parties  to this note,  whether  as  endorsers,
guarantors  or  sureties,  agree to remain  fully bound until this note shall be
fully paid and waive demand,  presentment and protest and all notices hereto and
further  agree to remain  bound  notwithstanding  any  extension,  modification,
waiver,  or other indulgence or discharge or release of any obligor hereunder or
exchange,  substitution,  or release of any  collateral  granted as security for
this note. No  modification  or indulgence by any holder hereof shall be binding
unless  in  writing;  and any  indulgence  on any one  occasion  shall not be an
indulgence  for any other or future  occasion.  The rights of any holder  hereof
shall be cumulative and not necessarily successive.  This note shall take effect
as a sealed  instrument  and shall be  constructed,  governed  and  enforced  in
accordance with the laws of the Province of British Columbia.

Witnessed:


/s/
-----------------------------------
Trevor Newton


-----------------------------------
Authorized signatory for Stratabase
#### Heidi Moon, Appellant, v. Julie Tupler, Respondent.

[973 NYS2d 131]

*487Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol R. Edmead, J.), entered October 1, 2012, in favor of defendant, Julie Tupler, in the amount of $8,000 with interest, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from the underlying order, same court and Justice, entered August 17, 2012, which confirmed an award by a special referee and directed the entry of judgment, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

The special referee had jurisdiction to hold plaintiff, Heidi Moon, personally liable for “disallowed” expenses, as the court’s February 8, 2011 order of reference directed the referee to determine, without limitation *(see*CPLR 4311), plaintiff’s compliance with paragraph two of the order that confirmed the arbitration award. Although the arbitrator awarded “restitution” as a remedy, he explicitly recognized that the calculation of damages was “problematic,” and thus fashioned an award that included paragraph two, the requirement for an accounting.

Article 75, cited by defendant in her petition to confirm the award, applies only to the confirmation of an award by an arbitrator, as opposed to a referee *(see*CPLR 7510; *Mobil Oil Indonesia v Asamera Oil [Indonesia],*43 NY2d 276, 281 [1977]). However, where “a substantial right of a party is not prejudiced, the mistake, omission, defect or irregularity shall be disregarded” (CPLR 2001; *see also Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v A.C. Dutton Lbr. Co.,*67 NY2d 138 [1986]), and there was no prejudice in citing the wrong provision in the application to confirm, as plaintiff was aware of the relief being sought and the failure to cite the proper provision did not result in any action being taken against her that would not have occurred had the proper provision, CPLR 4403, been cited. Concur — Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Saxe, Freedman and Clark, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                       5,367,783
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                9,515,648
<ALLOWANCES>                                   174,222
<INVENTORY>                                  3,789,221
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            19,012,014
<PP&E>                                      96,237,248
<DEPRECIATION>                              30,359,477
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              85,802,130
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       10,573,545
<BONDS>                                     21,124,974
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,644,810
<OTHER-SE>                                  53,011,271
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                85,802,130
<SALES>                                     27,601,410
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            27,601,410
<CGS>                                       24,607,512
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               24,607,512
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               629,711
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                27,473
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             514,388
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,911,251
<INCOME-TAX>                                   716,719
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,194,532
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,194,532
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .07


</TABLE>
#### Snyder *v.*Martin *et ux.*

*(Circuit Court, N. D. Illinois.*

July 22, *1889.)*

Fraudulent Conveyances—Consideration.

The wife of the manager of a corporation borrowed $600 from a stockholder, and bought half of the capital stock. This was all the money ever put into the business by her or her husband. From the earnings of the business, conducted entirely by the husband, real estate was bought, and title taken in the wife’s name. *Held,*that the land, being acquired entirely by the labor of the husband, was liable for his debts existing at that time.

In Equity. Creditor’s bill.

*G. F. Westover,*for complainant.

*Bisbee, Ahrens & Decker,*for defendants.

Blodgett, J.,

*(orally.)*This is a creditor’s bill by which the complainant seeks to recover the amount of a judgment rendered in favor of the firm of which the Complainant is the surviving partner against the firm of Lawrence & Martin on property, the title to which stands in the name of the defendant Carrie E. Martin, the wife of the defendant Morris T. Martin. It appears from the proof in the case that the defendant Carrie E. Martin holds the title to the real estate in question, and that all the said real estate was paid for with money earned in the business of the Phoenix Grain *&*Stock Exchange, a “bucket-shop” concern in this city, of which the defendant Morris T. Martin was the manager.

Mrs. Martin never invested any money in this corporation. She became a subscriber to one-half the capital stock of the company at the time it was formed. She borrowed, as the proof shows, from one of the stockholders the sum of $600, which was all the money that was ever put into the business, as far as the Martins were concerned. From the earnings of this business—the business which was conducted by Martin as its manager—the $600-note was paid and the real estate in question was bought and paid for, the title simply being taken in the name of Mrs. Martin. The defendant Morris T. Martin being in debt to the complainant at this time, I do not think he could secrete his earnings in the name of his wife to the delay or in fraud of his creditors. This is property that has not been earned or acquired by any effort or instrumentality of Mrs. Martin, nor is it the outcome of any investment by her; but it has been accumulated solely by the shrewd conduct and business ability of Morris Martin himself. There will be a decree in favor of the complainant.