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

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS 
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   OCT-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                      NOV-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                        JAN-31-1999
<CASH>                                    8,531
<SECURITIES>                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                             2,289
<ALLOWANCES>                                  0
<INVENTORY>                              27,486
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         38,464
<PP&E>                                    4,509
<DEPRECIATION>                            1,353
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           41,902
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    23,852
<BONDS>                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<COMMON>                                     75
<OTHER-SE>                               17,767
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             41,902
<SALES>                                  18,183
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         18,183
<CGS>                                    15,113
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            15,113
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          347
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             725
<INCOME-TAX>                                283
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         442
<DISCONTINUED>                              442
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                442
<EPS-PRIMARY>                               .06
<EPS-DILUTED>                               .06
        

</TABLE>
**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 Quarterly Report of Columbia Laboratories, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert
      S. Mills, 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 result of operations of the
              Company.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Robert
              S. MillsRobert S. Mills
              Chief
                  Executive Officer
                May
                  9, 2007
Exhibit 3.1

                     AMENDMENT OF ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                                MARKETLINK, INC.



     Article I of the Articles of  Incorporation  of  MarketLink,  Inc. has been
amended in its entirety to read as follows:


                                   "ARTICLE I.

     Name. The name of the Corporation shall be OneLink Communications, Inc."


     Article III of the Articles of Incorporation  of MarketLink,  Inc. has been
amended in its entirety to read as follows:


                                  "ARTICLE III.

     3.1) Authorized  Shares. The aggregate number of shares the corporation has
authority to issue shall be 50,000,000  shares,  which shall have a par value of
$.01 per share, and which shall consist of 40,000,000 shares of Common Stock and
10,000,000 undesignated shares.

     The Board of Directors of the  corporation  is authorized to establish from
the undesignated  shares, by resolution adopted and filed in the manner provided
by law, one or more classes or series of shares, to designate each such class or
series (which may include but is not limited to designation as additional shares
of Common Stock),  and to fix the relative  rights and  preferences of each such
class or series.

     The Board of Directors  shall have the authority to issue shares of a class
or  series,  shares of which may then be  outstanding,  to  holders of shares of
another class or series to effectuate share  dividends,  splits or conversion of
its outstanding shares."


     I certify  that I am  authorized  to execute this  Amendment  and I further
certify  that I understand  that by signing  this  Amendment I am subject to the
penalties of perjury as set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Section 609.48, as if I
had signed this Amendment under oath.

    Dated:  January 2, 1997



                                          /S/ Nicholas C. Bluhm
                                          Nicholas C. Bluhm, President
The District Court of the 18th Judicial District. *25County of Gallatin.

#### STATE OF MONTANA Plaintiff, vs. VICTORIA PEHRINGER, Defendant.

CAUSE NO. DC-07-44A DECISION

On February 11,2009, the defendant was sentenced to ten (10) years in the Montana State Prison for the offense of Theft of Property by Embezzlement, Common Scheme, a felony. The Court recommends that the Defendant be required to complete the Passages Treatment Program and the Re-Entry Program as a condition of parole.

On April 2, 2010, the defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The defendant was present and was represented by Kris Copenhaver. The state was not represented.

Before hearing the application, the defendant was advised by Ms. Copenhaver that she did not have her on her list of clients for this set of hearings and requested that the hearing be continued until the next set of hearings in order to have time to prepare her case. A Notice of Hearing was sent March 3, 2010 by the Sentence Review Division to Ms. Copenhaver and the defendant. Ms. Copenhaver also informed the Division that the defendant recently received several letters of support. Ms. Copenhaver had not reviewed these letters prior to the hearing date.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the application for review of sentence shall be continued until the next set of hearings in October 2010.

Done in open Court this 2nd day of April, 2010.

DATED this 19th day of April, 2010.

Chairperson, Hon. Blair Jones, Member, Hon. Richard Simonton and Member, Hon. Ray Dayton.
#### Nicole Lawi Zekry, Respondent, v Pinhas Zekry et al., Appellants.

[963 NYS2d 239]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Deborah A. Kaplan, J.), entered July 11, 2012, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendants argue that the amount of revenues generated by defendant corporation from 2004 through 2007 establishes that plaintiff’s claim that her husband, the individual defendant, was diverting monies from the corporation has no merit. Their sole supporting proof is an affidavit by the husband in which he purports to “analyze” the revenues and expenses of the business in 2008, while it was run by a temporary receiver, and then extrapolates therefrom the corporation’s profits in the earlier years.

*577The affidavit is inadmissible. First, defendants are precluded from presenting any evidence of the revenues of the business by two court orders issued as a result of their admitted spoliation of relevant financial records and their obstruction of discovery. Second, the husband invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination at his deposition to avoid answering a wide range of questions about the revenues of the business during the relevant period, and cannot now selectively provide testimony on that very subject *(see Federal Chandros v Silverite Constr. Co.,*167 AD2d 315 [1st Dept 1990], *appeal dismissed and lv denied*77 NY2d 893 [1991]). Third, the husband may not testify as an “expert,” since he neither has the proper credentials nor was identified by defendants as an expert *(see*CPLR 3101 [d]). We note also that the husband’s analysis is contradicted by plaintiffs accounting expert’s analysis, which in any event would preclude summary judgment.

Defendants failed to preserve their argument in support of dismissing plaintiff’s claims based on her allegation that the husband misled her about the amount of his own initial capital contribution to the corporation, thereby inducing her to provide substantially more than the 40% of the contribution she was required to pay. This fact-based issue is therefore not properly before us *(see Recovery Consultants v Shih-Hsieh,*141 AD2d 272, 276 [1st Dept 1988]). In any event, defendants failed to establish prima facie that plaintiffs claims are false. Even if the documents they submitted for that purpose were not subject to an order precluding any evidence of the husband’s initial capital contribution other than the 2003 corporate income tax return, and were properly authenticated, the inferences to be drawn therefrom are contradicted by plaintiffs expert’s analysis, which in any event would preclude summary judgment.

Concur—Tom, J.E, Sweeny, Saxe, Román and Feinman, JJ.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-19-00217-CV

N. P. and J. P., Appellants

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

FROM THE 207TH DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY 

NO. C2017-2053B

THE HONORABLE CHARLES A. STEPHENS II, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

Appellants N. P. and J. P. filed their notices of appeal on March 29, 2019, and 

April 2, 2019, respectively. The appellate record was complete May 9, 2019, making appellants’ 

briefs due May 29, 2019. To date, appellant N. P. has not filed a brief.

The rules of judicial administration accelerate the final disposition of appeals 

from suits for termination of parental rights. See Tex. R. Jud. Admin. 6.2(a) (providing 180 days 

for court’s final disposition). The accelerated schedule requires greater compliance with briefing 

deadlines. Therefore, we order N. P. to file appellant’s brief no later than June 21, 2019. If the 

brief is not filed by that date, the appeal of N. P. may be dismissed for want of prosecution.

It is ordered on June 11, 2019.
2

Before Justices Goodwin, Baker, and Triana
**EXHIBIT 23.2**
**NOTICE REGARDING CONSENT OF ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP**
Section 11(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 provides that if any part of aregistration statement, when such part became effective, contained an untruestatement of a material fact, or omitted to state a material fact required tobe stated therein or necessary to make the statements therein not misleading,any person acquiring a security pursuant to such registration statement (unlessit is proved that at the time of such acquisition such person knew of suchuntruth or omission) may sue, among others, every accountant who has consentedto be named as having prepared or certified any part of the registrationstatement, with respect to the statement in such registration statement,report, or valuation, which purports to have been prepared or certified by theaccountant.
On March 18, 2002, we dismissed Arthur Andersen LLP (Arthur Andersen) as ourindependent auditors. Prior to the date of filing this Form 10-K, ArthurAndersen ceased operations. After reasonable efforts, we have been unable toobtain Arthur Andersen’s written consent to the incorporation by reference ofArthur Andersen’s audit report with respect to our financial statements for theyear ended September 30, 2001 into our Registration Statements (Reg. Nos.33-66980, 33-86230, 333-01874, 333-03865, 333-22943, 333-28717, 333-45991,333-60321, 333-62576, 333-70354, 333-73201, 333-82879, and 333-88114). Suchaudit report is included in this Form 10-K.
Under these circumstances, Rule 437a under the Securities Act of 1933 permitsus to file this Form 10-K, which is incorporated by reference into the abovelisted registration statements, without a written consent from Arthur Andersen.However, as a result, Arthur Andersen will not have any liability underSection 11(a) of the Securities Act for any untrue statements of a materialfact contained in the financial statements audited by Arthur Andersen or anyomissions of a material fact required to be stated therein. Accordingly, youwould be unable to assert a claim against Arthur Andersen under Section 11(a)of the Securities Act. We believe, however, that other persons who are liableunder Section 11(a) of the Securities Act, including our officers anddirectors, may still rely on Arthur Andersen’s audit reports as being made byan expert under the due diligence defense provision of Section 11(b) of theSecurities Act. The law in this area remains unsettled, however, and noassurance can be given that a court will find such reliance to be justified.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2545 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain men’s wading boots, valued 

over $20/pair, but not over $45/pair, with outer soles of rubber, plastics, 

leather, or composition leather and uppers of leather whose height from 

the bottom of the outer sole to the top of the upper does not exceed 

9 inches (22.86 cm). 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 30, 2009 

Ms. CANTWELL introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain men’s wading 

boots, valued over $20/pair, but not over $45/pair, with 

outer soles of rubber, plastics, leather, or composition 

leather and uppers of leather whose height from the 

bottom of the outer sole to the top of the upper does 

not exceed 9 inches (22.86 cm). 

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


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2545 IS

1 SECTION 1. CERTAIN MEN’S WADING BOOTS, VALUED OVER 

2 $20/PAIR, BUT NOT OVER $45/PAIR, WITH 

3 OUTER SOLES OF RUBBER, PLASTICS, LEATH4 ER, OR COMPOSITION LEATHER AND UPPERS 

5 OF LEATHER WHOSE HEIGHT FROM THE BOT6 TOM OF THE OUTER SOLE TO THE TOP OF 

7 THE UPPER DOES NOT EXCEED 9 INCHES 

8 (22.86 CM). 

9 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

10 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

11 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

12 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Men’s wading boots, valued 

over $20/pair, but not over 

$45/pair, with outer soles of 

rubber, plastics, leather, or 

composition leather and uppers of leather whose height 

from the bottom of the outer 

sole to the top of the upper 

does not exceed 9 inches 

(22.86 cm) (provided for in 

subheading 6403.19.40) ........ Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 

13 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

14 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

15 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

16 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant-Respondent, v Michael Hall, Respondent-Appellant.

Submitted October 12, 2010;

decided October 14, 2010

*861Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Steven Banks, Esq., the Legal Aid Society, 199 Water Street, New York, NY 10038 assigned as counsel to the respondent-appellant on the appeal herein.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 105 (Wednesday, June 3, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 26654]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-12884]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


U.S. Nuclear Command and Control System Comprehensive Review 
Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Department of Defense.

ACTION: Notice of closed meeting; rescheduled.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense published an announcement of a 
closed meeting of the U.S. Nuclear Command and Control System 
Comprehensive Review Advisory Committee on May 15, 2009 (74 FR 22894-
22895). The meeting was scheduled for June 2, 2009. This meeting has 
been rescheduled to June 24, 2009. All other information in the notice 
remains the same.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. William L. Jones, (703) 681-1924, 
U.S. Nuclear Command and Control System Support Staff (NSS), Skyline 3, 
5201 Leesburg Pike, Suite 500, Falls Church, Virginia 22041.

    Dated: May 27, 2009.
Patricia L. Toppings,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. E9-12884 Filed 6-2-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
No. 821.

#### Aiken et al. *v.*Insull et al.; and DeMet’s, Incorporated, et al. *v.*Insull et al.

No. 822.

March 16, 1942.
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.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration 

          - [TA-W-65,646] 

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on March 20, 2009 in response to a worker petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers of Honeywell International, Olathe, Kansas. 

The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated. 

Signed at Washington, DC this 29th day of April 2009. 

Elliott S. Kushner, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-11861 Filed 5-20-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 23

- 00107

- CR

Joe RANGEL

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 175th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021CR7315

Honorable Catherine Torres

- Stahl , Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ALVAREZ

, JUSTICE CHAPA , AND JUSTICE RIOS

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s sentencing judgment

is modified to strike the fine assessed against Appellant Rangel. The tria l court’s judgment is

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.

SIGNED April 24, 2024.

_____________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<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>                                       4,229,081
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,997,117
<ALLOWANCES>                                   657,348
<INVENTORY>                                  1,598,759
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             9,207,783
<PP&E>                                       2,554,767
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,436,246
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              15,690,237
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,866,107
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         81
<COMMON>                                       290,247
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,533,802
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,824,130
<SALES>                                     17,129,968
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            17,129,968
<CGS>                                        4,975,544
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,975,544
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            11,577,519
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             566,514
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                454,421
<INCOME-TAX>                                    69,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            385,421
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   385,421
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
|   | 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      Registrant. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  August      16, 2010 | /s/ George Carpenter                                       |   |
|---------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                  | George      Carpenter                                      |   |
|                                  | Chief      Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) |   |
|                                  |                                                       |   |
|                                  | /s/ Paul Buck                                              |   |
|                                  | Paul      Buck                                             |   |
|                                  | Chief      Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer) |   |

----
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1226 

CAF 11-01113 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CARNI, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND GREEN, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF BRITTNEY N., 

RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. 

------------------------------------ ORDER

NIAGARA COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT, 

PETITIONER-RESPONDENT. 

THOMAS M. O’DONNELL, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, NIAGARA FALLS, FOR

RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. 

CLAUDE A. JOERG, COUNTY ATTORNEY, LOCKPORT (ERIN P. DELABIO OF

COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Niagara County (David

E. Seaman, J.), entered August 5, 2010 in a proceeding pursuant to

Family Court Act article 7. The order placed respondent in the

custody of the Niagara County Commissioner of Social Services. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs.

Entered: November 10, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan

Clerk of the Court