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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         15,905
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  28,997
<ALLOWANCES>                                   633
<INVENTORY>                                    16,984
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               66,078
<PP&E>                                         110,082
<DEPRECIATION>                                 51,559
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 177,901
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          29,648
<BONDS>                                        105,365
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    2,000
<COMMON>                                       713
<OTHER-SE>                                     32,196
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   177,901
<SALES>                                        267,119
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               267,119
<CGS>                                          221,388
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  221,388
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               20,623
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             12,638
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                12,470
<INCOME-TAX>                                   4,396
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            8,074
<DISCONTINUED>                                 96
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (73)
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   8,097
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  1.12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  1.05
        


</TABLE>
<PAGE>


                                  Exhibit 23.1


                                BDO Seidman, LLP
                      1900 Avenue of the Starts, 11th Floor
                              Los Angeles, CA 90067




               Consent of Independent Certified Public Accountants


Sorrento Networks Corporation.
San Diego, California


We hereby consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Nos. 333-28863, 333-22291 and 333-51445) on Form S-3 and No. 333-92111 on Form
S-8 of Sorrento Networks Corporation (formerly Osicom Technologies, Inc.) of our
report, dated March 2, 2001, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of
Sorrento Networks Corporation and subsidiaries as of January 31, 2001 and 2000,
and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity, and
cash flows for the years ended January 31, 2001, 2000 and 1999, which report
appears in the January 31, 2001 annual report on Form 10-K of Sorrento Networks
Corporation.

Our report indicates that we did not audit the financial statements of a
discontinued foreign subsidiary which statements reflect net assets of
$1,632,000 as of January 31, 2000 and total revenues of $20,819,000 and
$39,039,000 for the years ended January 31, 2000 and 1999, respectively. These
amounts are included in the net investment in and results of discontinued
operations in the accompanying financial statements. Those statements were
audited by other auditors whose report has been furnished to us, and our
opinion, insofar as it relates to the amounts included for such subsidiary, is
based solely on the reports of the other auditors.



                                                   BDO SEIDMAN, LLP

Los Angeles, California
May 1, 2001
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 127 (Monday, July 6, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31969-31970]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15887]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1847-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2008-0018]


Missouri; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Missouri (FEMA-1847-DR), dated June 19, 2009, and 
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: June 26, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance 
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Missouri is hereby amended to include the following 
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by 
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration 
of June 19, 2009.

    Grundy and Livingston Counties for Public Assistance.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community 
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment 
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, 
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for 
Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster 
Assistance to Individuals

[[Page 31970]]

and Households--Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public 
Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard 
Mitigation Grant.)

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E9-15887 Filed 7-2-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
#### Elroy Musso, Appellant, v Macray Movers, Inc., Defendant, and P & A Auto Electric Corp. et al., Respondents.

[822 NYS2d 305]

*595In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kitzes, J.), dated October 28, 2005, which granted the motion of the defendants P & A Auto Electric Corp., and Prez Realty, Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion of the defendants P & A Auto Electric Corp., and Prez Realty, Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them is denied.

To be entitled to judgment as a matter of law in a slip-and-fall case, a landowner must establish, prima facie, that it did not create the condition that caused the fall and did not have actual or constructive notice of that condition in a reasonably sufficient time to remedy it *(see Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]; *Joachim v 1824 Church Ave., Inc.,*12 AD3d 409, 410 [2004]; *Soon Rae Kim v Caesar Chemists,*297 AD2d 797, 797-798 [2002]; *Urena v New York City Tr. Auth.,*248 AD2d 377, 378 [1998]). The failure of a landowner to make such a showing requires denial of the motion without regard to the sufficiency of the opposition papers *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; *Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr.,*64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]; *Mariaca-Olmos v Mizrhy,*226 AD2d 437, 438 [1996]).

Here, the respondents did not establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law since they failed to demonstrate that the ice on which the plaintiff slipped was not present several days before the accident. Contrary to the respondents’ assertions before the Supreme Court and in this Court, the owner of the respondent P & A Auto Electric Corp. did not testify at his deposition that there was no ice on the ground in the days before the accident. Crane, J.P, Goldstein, Rivera and Lifson, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32





Allegiant Travel Company Certification under Section 906 of the Sarbanes/Oxley Act - filed as an exhibit to 10-Q for Quarter Ended September 30, 2011





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 Allegiant Travel Company (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Maurice J. Gallagher, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Scott Sheldon, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of our 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.








/s/ Maurice J. Gallagher, Jr.

/s/ Scott SheldonMaurice J. Gallagher, Jr.

Scott SheldonPrincipal Executive Officer

Principal Financial OfficerNovember 4, 2011

November 4, 2011





The foregoing Certification shall not be deemed incorporated by reference by any general statement incorporating by reference this report into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, except to the extent that we specifically incorporate this information by reference, and shall not otherwise be deemed filed under such Acts.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-01-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-04-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-01-2000
<CASH>                                             788
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,530
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      2,497
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,814
<PP&E>                                         228,611
<DEPRECIATION>                                  86,619
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 168,476
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           25,710
<BONDS>                                         61,052
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           158
<OTHER-SE>                                      81,556<F1>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   168,476
<SALES>                                        231,170
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               231,170
<CGS>                                           57,679
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  222,387
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (170)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,189
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,764
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,729
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,035
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,035
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .36
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .34
<FN>
<F1>NET OF TREASURY STOCK
</FN>


</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-60095 Conference Calendar

LOUIS JAMES CLAY, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus LILLIE BLACKMON SANDERS, Judge Wilkinson County, Mississippi, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 5:98-CV-167-BrS

- - - - - - - - - - October 20, 1999 Before JONES, WIENER, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Louis James Clay, Jr., Mississippi state prisoner # 08452, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint based on a finding of absolute immunity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii). On appeal, Clay argues that the district court erred when it dismissed his § 1983 complaint and requests appointment of counsel. He also argues that the district court judge presiding over the case should have recused himself pursuant to Clay’s motion to alter or amend judgment. See Fed.No. 99-60095 -2- R. Civ. P. 59(e). The issue whether the district court judge should have recused himself pursuant to Clay’s Rule 59(e) motion is not properly before this court. Clay filed a notice of appeal after making the motion but before the district court ruled on the motion. Clay did not file a subsequent notice of appeal, nor amend the previously filed notice of appeal following the denial of his Rule 59(e) motion. Such action is a prerequisite to this court’s jurisdiction. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(ii). The district court properly concluded that Judge Sanders is entitled to absolute immunity from suit. See Stump v. Sparkman , 435 U.S. 349, 356-64 (1978); Boyd v. Biggers , 31 F.3d 279, 284 (5th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, the district court’s dismissal of Clay’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii) is AFFIRMED. Clay’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED.
#### Blin *against*Campbell.

NEW YORK,

October, 1817.

The plaintiff *tion*"in a jusan assault and which a trial was bad, and Íerldenta»arjnst íiwds '"brought an action on the nother justice, for the same injury. Held, that as the former action for the assault and battery was not within the jurisdiction of the justice, the judgment thereon was a mere nullity, although unreversed, and not a bar to the subsequent action on the case. "Where there is an immediate injury attributable to negligence, the party injured has an election either to treat the negligence of the defendant as the cause of action, and to declare in case, or to consider the act itself sa the injury, and to declare in trespass.

IN ERROR, on *certiorari*to a justice’s court,

The defendant in error brought an action of trespass on the case, in the court below, against the plaintiff in error, and declared for an imury done by the defendant below, in firing a *j j j*o ^ pigt°l and w'ounding his leg. The defendant below pleaded in bar a former trial, and judgment, for the same cause of action, *437and proved that the plaintiff had brought an action of trespass before another justice, wherein he had complained of the same injury, and the justice, after having clear and explicit proof of the fact, gave judgment against the plaintiff; but the justice, in the present case, decided that that judgment was no bar to this suit, and the plaintiff having proved that the defendant, being a trooper, had wounded his leg by negligently firing a pistol, the justice gave judgment for the plaintiff below, (the defendant in error.)

*Per Curiam.*

The former action of trespass, for the same injury, was clearly an action for an assault and battery, of which the justice had no jurisdiction. It was a proceeding *coram non judice,*and, therefore, void. The justice did right in disregarding it as a nullity, although unreversed. The only question then is, whether this action of trespass on the case is not liable to the same objection of want of jurisdiction. *(*From the authorities on the subject, it appears, that if the injury attributable to negligence, though it were immediate, the party injured has an election, either to treat the negligence of the defendant as the cause of action, and to declare in case, or to consider the act itself as the injury, and to declare in trespass. (1 *Chilly Plead.*127., and the cases there cited.) The proof on the trial clearly showed the act to have been unintentional. It is a case of mere negligence ; and, as there is no appearance of undue evasion on the part of the justice to extend his jurisdiction, the judgment ought to be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 127 (Monday, July 6, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31937-31938]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15735]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13445-000]


McGinnis, Inc.; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted 
for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing 
Applications

June 25, 2009.
    On April 29, 2009, McGinnis, Inc. filed an application for a 
preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, 
proposing to study the feasibility of the Newburgh Hydrokinetic 
Project, located on the Ohio River, Henderson County, Kentucky, and 
Warrick County, Indiana. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if 
issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license 
application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not 
authorize the permit holder to perform any land disturbing activities 
or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the 
owners' express permission.
    The proposed project would consist of: (1) A 100 to 300-foot-long 
by 20 to 52-foot-wide barge spudded down to the riverbed; (2) 10 6-8-
foot-long by 6-8-foot-diameter turbine-generators mounted in line along 
the side of the barge; (3) one armored, high-voltage cable transmitting 
the generated power to the existing transmission line located

[[Page 31938]]

adjacent to the proposed project area; and (4) appurtenant facilities. 
The proposed project would generate about 1,533 megawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Bruce D. McGinnis, Sr., McGinnis, Inc., P. O. 
Box 534, 502 Second St. Ext., South Point, OH 45680, phone: (740) 377-
4391.
    FERC Contact: Sergiu Serban, 202-502-6211.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing 
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file 
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. 
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing 
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site 
under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically, 
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight 
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For 
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to 
the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-comments.asp.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the 
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of the 
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. 
Enter the docket number (P-13445) in the docket number field to access 
the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-15735 Filed 7-2-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Cleartronic, Inc. (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2018 of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



February 19, 2019



By:  /s/ Michael M. Moore

Michael M. Moore

Principal Executive Officer



By:  /s/ Larry M. Reid

Larry M. Reid

Principal Financial Officer
IV 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 98 

Recognizing the cultural and historical significance of Lunar New Year in 

2019. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 4, 2019 

Ms. MENG (for herself, Mr. BEYER, Mr. CASTEN of Illinois, Ms. JUDY CHU

of California, Mr. CISNEROS, Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts, Mr. COX of 

California, Mr. CROW, Ms. ESHOO, Mr. ESPAILLAT, Mr. GARAMENDI, Mr. 

GOMEZ, Ms. HAALAND, Mr. HORSFORD, Mr. KHANNA, Mr. KILMER, Ms. 

JACKSON LEE, Ms. JAYAPAL, Mr. JEFFRIES, Mr. KIM, Mr. 

KRISHNAMOORTHI, Mr. TED LIEU of California, Mr. LIPINSKI, Ms. LOFGREN, Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York, Ms. MATSUI, Mr. 

MCGOVERN, Mr. MCNERNEY, Mr. MEEKS, Mrs. MURPHY, Ms. NORTON, 

Mr. PALLONE, Mr. PASCRELL, Mr. PETERS, Ms. PORTER, Mr. QUIGLEY, 

Mr. RASKIN, Mr. RUSH, Ms. SCANLON, Mr. SMITH of Washington, Mr. 

SUOZZI, Mr. TAKANO, Ms. TITUS, Mr. TRONE, and Ms. VELA ́ZQUEZ) 

submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 

on Oversight and Reform 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the cultural and historical significance of Lunar 

New Year in 2019. 

Whereas Lunar New Year begins on the second new moon 

following the winter solstice, or the first day of the new 

year according to the lunisolar calendar, and extends 

until the full moon 15 days later; 

Whereas the 15th day of the new year, according to the 

lunisolar calendar, is called the Lantern Festival; 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 98 IH 

Whereas Lunar New Year is often referred to as Spring Festival in various Asian countries; 

Whereas many religious and ethnic communities use lunarbased calendars; 

Whereas Lunar New Year began in China more than 4,000 

years ago and is widely celebrated in East and Southeast 

Asia; 

Whereas the Asian diaspora has expanded the Lunar New 

Year celebration into an annual worldwide event; 

Whereas Lunar New Year is celebrated by millions of Asian 

Americans, and by many non-Asian Americans, in the 

United States; 

Whereas Lunar New Year is celebrated with community activities and cultural performances; 

Whereas participants celebrating Lunar New Year travel to 

spend the holiday reuniting with family and friends; and 

Whereas Lunar New Year is traditionally a time to wish 

upon others good fortune, health, prosperity, and happiness: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) recognizes the cultural and historical signifi3 cance of Lunar New Year; 

4 (2) in observance of this Lunar New Year, the 

5 Year of the Pig, expresses its deepest respect for 

6 Asian Americans and all individuals throughout the 

7 world who celebrate this significant occasion; and 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•HRES 98 IH 

1 (3) wishes Asian Americans and all individuals 

2 who observe this holiday a happy and prosperous 

3 new year. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
228, 88 P.3d 840, 844(2004); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 

Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 851, 853 (1991); NRAP 21(b)(1). 

Accordingly, we 

ORDER the petition DENIED. 1 

Gibbotfs Pickering 

cc: Hon. Mark R. Denton, District Judge 

Pezzillo Lloyd 

Steven M. Garber & Associates, A Professional Corporation 

Marquis Aurbach Coffing 

Gordon & Rees, LLP 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

'In light of our resolution of this writ petition, petitioner's June 29, 

2015, stay motion is denied as moot. 

(0) )947A 2