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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the Form 10-Q
for the three months ended December 31, 1999 and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          16,749
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,339
<ALLOWANCES>                                       171
<INVENTORY>                                         87
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                25,830
<PP&E>                                          15,078
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,168
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  37,450
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,278
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            56
<OTHER-SE>                                      36,229
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    37,450
<SALES>                                          6,453
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,453
<CGS>                                            2,021
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,472
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (320)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    302
<INCOME-TAX>                                        96
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                206
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       206
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .04


</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh

Elizabeth M. Welch

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

F ebruary 10 , 2021 

# Order

Clerk Febr uary 1 0 , 2021

162266

- 7 ( 55 )

DENNIS UPPLEGER and KATHY

UPPLEGER,

Plaintiffs

- Appellants,

SC: 162266, 16226

v COA: 348551; 348928

St. Clair CC: 17

- 000559

- NH

MCLAREN PORT HURON, NALINI

SAMUEL, M.D., individually and

doing business as BLUE WATER

NEUROLOGY CLINIC, P.C.,

DEVPR AKASH SAMUEL, M.D.,

AUBREY JOZEFIAK, R.N., MELISSA

COOK, R.N., MICHELLE FRANCISCO,

R.N., and CATHERINE FOURNIER, R.N.,

Defendants

- Appellees.

______________________________________ /

On order of the C hief Justice , the motion of defendants

- appellees Nalini Samuel,

M.D., individually and doing business as Blue Water Neurology Clinic, P.C., to extend the

time for filing their answer to the application for leave to appeal is GRANTED. The answer

will be accepted as timely filed if submitted on or before February 26 , 2021

.
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 12, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 42813]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19334]


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

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Notice of Agreements Filed

    The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following 
agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may 
submit comments on the agreement to the Secretary, Federal Maritime 
Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within twelve days of the date this 
notice appears in the Federal Register. A copy of the agreement is 
available through the Commission's Web site (www.fmc.gov) or by 
contacting the Office of Agreements at (202) 523-5793 or 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#94e0e6f5f0f1f5faf5f8ede7fde7d4f2f9f7baf3fbe2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6d191f0c09080c030c01141e041e2d0b000e430a021b">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Agreement No.: 012491.
    Title: TraPac--SSA Cooper Terminal Discussion Agreement.
    Parties: SSA Cooper, LLC and TraPac Inc.
    Filing Party: Paul M. Heylman; Saul Ewing LLP; 1919 Pennsylvania 
Avenue NW., Suite 550; Washington, DC 20006.
    Synopsis: The Agreement authorizes TraPac and SSA Cooper to engage 
in discussions about the possible formation of a new entity or possible 
cooperation within existing company structures at the Port of 
Jacksonville, Florida.

    Agreement No.: 012067-020.
    Title: U.S. Supplemental Agreement to HLC Agreement.
    Parties: BBC Chartering Carriers GmbH & Co. KG and BBC Chartering & 
Logistic GmbH & Co. KG, as a single member; Hanssy Shipping Pte. Ltd.; 
Industrial Maritime Carriers, L.L.C.; and Rickmers-Linie GmbH & Cie. 
KG.
    Filing Party: Wade S. Hooker, Esq.; 211 Central Park W.; New York, 
NY 10024.
    Synopsis: The amendment deletes Chipolbrok (Chinese-Polish Joint 
Stock Shipping Company) and J. Poulson Shipping A/S as parties to the 
U.S. Supplemental Agreement and/or the HLC Agreement and clarifies 
procedures relating to admission of parties.

    By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.
    Dated: September 6, 2017.
Rachel E. Dickon,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-19334 Filed 9-11-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6731-AA-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
|   | 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/ Heath L. Golden                   |
|   | Heath L. Golden                       |
|   | President and Chief Executive Officer |
|   | Hampshire Group, Limited              |
|   | May 12, 2011                          |
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20
- 1953

BRIGITTE KIZA; NYIRANGORORE MUKASINI; SOLANGE MUKEMANA, as lawful guardian ad litem of Minor Child U.G.; MARIE MUKARURANGWA , Plaintiffs

- Appellants ,

v. UNIVERSAL INSURANCE COMPANY; DOES I

- XXX , Defendants

- Appellees,
and ALL POINT INSURANCE AGENCY; AUTO CLUB COMPANY OF FLORIDA; PAUL ROBERT HOPKINS,
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Charlotte

. Robert J. Conrad, Jr. , District Judge. ( 3:19

- cv
- 00136

- RJC

- DSC )

Submitted : February 18, 2021 Decided: February 22, 2021

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.2 Brig i tte Kiza, Nyirangorore Mukasini, Solange Mukemana, Marie Mukarurangwa, Appellant s Pro Se. Stephanie W. Anderson, SUE & ANDERSON, LLP, Greensboro, North Caro lina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM: Brigitte Kiza, Nyirangorore Mukasini, Solange Mukemana

— as guardian ad litem
for U.G. , and Marie Mukarurangwa seek to appeal t he district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, denying their motion to amend, dismissing their claims against Universal Insurance Company, and ordering them to show cause why their claims against All Point Insurance Agency should not be dismis sed. * This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541, 545

- 46 (1949). The order K iza , Mukasini, Mukemana, and Mukarurangwa seek to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

* The Plaintiffs entered a stipulation of dismissal of their claims against the other two named Defendants, Auto Club Company of Florida and Paul Robert Hopkins.
ex-10_42.htm







 

Lithium Technology Corporation 10-K/A


 





Exhibit 10.42







ADDENDUM







Agreement of Payment







Between







GAIA Akkumulatorenwerke GmbH, Montaniastrasse 17, 99734 Nordhausen


Below: Technology company (TU)







And







Tbg Technologie-Beteilingungs-Gesellschaft mbH, Ludwig-Erhard-Platz 1, 53179 Bonn


Below: TBG







In connection with the Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology (BMWi) and the KfW, the German former Ausgleichsbank program "equity for small technology companies (BTU)", TBG closed on a typical silent partnership contract about DM 3,000,000.00 (EUR 1,533,875.64) between the dates of August 21, 1998 and March 8, 1999 (hereinafter the BTU Contract).







Between November 11, 2009 and November 16, 2009 an agreement was made between the TU and the TBG for payment and interest on total loan amount.







From January 1, 2009 until the date of signing of this agreement the following payments were made:







On November 11, 2009 for the period of November 30, 2009 until March 31, 2009 EUR 36,398.87


On November 30,2009 for the period of April 1, 2009 until September 30, 2009 EUR 71776.15


On December 30, 2009 repayment of principal amount EUR 125.000,00


On June 30, 2010 repayment of principal amount EUR 125.000,00







The remaining Amount due under the claims of TBG as of the date of signing this addendum are as follows:







First Principal amount of EUR 1,243,875.64 silent participation


Second accrued interest from October 1, 2009 until September 30, 2010 of EUR 134,408.48


Third Terminal Amount EUR 613,550.27


Total amount: EUR 1,991,834.39







Having said that the following is agreed:







First TU agrees to make an interest payment in the amount of 134,408.48 EUR no later than December 31, 2010.


Second § 1 of the abs. (1) is changed due to the previously agreed payment schedule, and not by March 30, 2010 and September 30, 2010 installments as follows:







(1) The nominal amount of installment payments is as follows:


First Payment on December 30, 2010 EUR 125.000,00


Second Payment on March 30, 2011 EUR 125.000,00


Third Payment on June 30, 2011 EUR 125.000,00


Fourth Payment on September 30, 2011 EUR 125.000,00


Fifth Payment on December 30, 2012 EUR 125.000,00


Sixth Payment on March 30, 2012 EUR 125,000.00


Seventh Payment on June 30, 2012 EUR 125.000,00


Eighth Payment on September 30, 2012 EUR 125.000,00


Ninth Payment on December 30, 2012 EUR 125.000,00


Tenth Payment on March 30, 2013 EUR 125,000.00







(2) The remaining provisions of the BTU contract shall continue unchanged.
Exhibit 32

                        GLOBAL ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION
           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 on Form 10-Q of Global  Entertainment
Corporation  (the Company) for the fiscal quarter  ending  February 28, 2009, as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
Quarterly  Report),  the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer of the Company each hereby certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     1.   The Quarterly  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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in
          all  material  respects,   the  financial  condition  and  results  of
          operations of the Company.

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 the Company and will be retained by
the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.

Dated April 14, 2009


/s/ Richard Kozuback
-----------------------------------------------
Richard Kozbuack
President & Chief Executive Officer


/s/ James Yeager
-----------------------------------------------
James Yeager
Senior Vice President & Chief Financial Officer
Termination Agreement regarding the


Equity Acquisition Option Agreement












Party A: Detian Yu Biotechnology (Beijing) Co. Limited (德天御生态科技(北京)有限公司)


Domicile: Unit 807, Building A, North Star Century Centre, North Star Road West No. 8 Yuan, Chaoyang District, Beijing (北京市朝阳区北辰西路8号院北辰世纪中心A座807)







Party B: Zhao Jing (赵晶)


ID Card No.: 142401198203010928







Party C: Zhao Peilin(赵培林)


ID Card No.: 42401197408022717


 



WHEREAS:





 



	 	
1.

	
Party A, Party B and Party C have entered into an Equity Acquisition Option Agreement dated November 16, 2010, pursuant to which Party B and Party C granted Party A or any third party designated by Party A an option of acquiring part of or all the equity interests in Jinzhonglongyue Investment Consulting Service Co., Ltd. (晋中龙跃投资咨询服务有限公司) (hereinafter referred to as “Jinzhonglongyue” ) from Party B and/or Party C when permitted by applicable PRC laws and deemed appropriate by Party A.







 



	 	
2.

	
As provided in the Equity Acquisition Option Agreement, at any time during Exercise Period, Party A may in its sole discretion terminate such agreement unconditionally by giving written notice to Party B and/or Party C without liability.









 




  





1











  









UPON FRIENDLY NEGOTIATION, NOW IT IS HEREBY AGREED AS FOLLOWS:











	
1.

	
Terminate the Equity Acquisition Option Agreement entered into by and between Party A, Party B and Party C.



















	
2.

	
Termination Agreement regarding the Equity Acquisition Option Agreement (hereinafter referred to as “this Agreement”) shall take effect upon signature (where the parties are natural persons) or seal and signature (where the parties are legal persons) by all parties. The Equity Acquisition Option Agreement shall be terminated as of the effective date of this Agreement and no longer binding upon the parties hereto.



















	
3.

	
This Agreement shall be in triplicate, one for each party and each shall be equally valid.









 




  





2











  






 



(Below is signing page without text)


 


(Here is signing page1 without text)





 





Party A:(seal)




 



By:(sign) /s/ Authorized Person


 


Signing date:December 20, 2011


 


Party B:(sign) /s/ Zhao Jing


 


Signing date:December 20, 2011


 


Party C:(sign) /s/ Zhao Peilin


 


Signing date:December 20, 2011




 




  





3
III 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 147 

Designating Donald A. Ritchie as Historian Emeritus of the United States 

Senate. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 22, 2015 

Mr. MCCONNELL (for himself and Mr. REID) submitted the following 

resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Designating Donald A. Ritchie as Historian Emeritus of 

the United States Senate. 

Whereas Donald A. Ritchie will retire from the United States 

Senate after serving with distinction, first as Associate 

Historian from 1976 to 2009, and then as Senate Historian from 2009 to 2015; 

Whereas Donald A. Ritchie has dedicated his Senate service 

to preserving, protecting, and promoting the history of 

the Senate and its members; 

Whereas Donald A. Ritchie has produced or guided production of numerous publications detailing the rich institutional history of the Senate; 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 147 ATS 

Whereas Donald A. Ritchie has been instrumental in preserving, organizing, and making available to scholars the 

vast archival holdings of the Senate and its members; 

Whereas Donald A. Ritchie has assisted in the Senate’s commemoration of events of historical significance and in the 

development of exhibitions and educational programs on 

the history of the Senate and the Capitol; 

Whereas Donald A. Ritchie has guided the Senate’s comprehensive Oral History Project to capture and preserve 

the institutional memory of Senators, Senate officers, and 

Senate staff; 

Whereas Donald A. Ritchie has upheld the high standards 

and traditions of the Senate, and has performed his duties in a professional and nonpartisan manner; and 

Whereas Donald A. Ritchie has earned the respect and esteem of the United States Senate; Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That, effective June 1, 2015, as a token of 

2 the appreciation of the Senate for his long and faithful 

3 service, Donald A. Ritchie is hereby designated as Histo4 rian Emeritus of the United States Senate. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Robert E. MAYO, Petitioner, v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Respondent.

No. 2007-3053.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Dec. 10, 2007.

Before RADER, SCHALL, and PROST, Circuit Judges.

*251
      *ORDER*

SCHALL, Circuit Judge.

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) moves without opposition to lift the stay of proceedings and remand Robert E. Mayo’s petition for review of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board.

Mayo filed an appeal alleging that OPM had improperly charged him leave for the performance of military reserve duty on non-workdays in violation of the Uniform Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), 38 U.S.C. § 4301 (2000). The Board held that Mayo had failed to meet his burden of establishing a violation of USERRA and dismissed his complaint without granting a hearing. Mayo appealed.

On March 7, 2007, we issued our decision in *Kirkendall v. Army,*479 F.3d 830 (Fed.Cir.2007) (en banc), *cert. denied*— U.S.-, 128 S.Ct. 375, 169 L.Ed.2d 260 (2007). *Kirkendall*held, inter alia, that USERRA requires that “any veteran who requests a hearing shall receive one.” *Id.*at 844. Because Mayo was denied a hearing, we remand for further proceedings in light of *Kirkendall.*On remand, the Board may also consider, inter alia, our recent decisions in *Hernandez v. Department of the Air Force,*498 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir.2007) and *Pucilowski v. Department of Justice,*498 F.3d 1341 (Fed.Cir.2007).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion is granted. The Board’s decision is vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

(2) All sides shall bear their own costs.
#### A. L. GALLEY, Plaintiff, v. The PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

May 18, 1962.

*557William McKelvey, New York City, for plaintiff.

Conboy, Hewitt, O’Brien & Boardman, New York City, James S. Rowen, New York City, of counsel, for defendant.

DAWSON, District Judge.

This is a motion to direct the defendant to submit its employees to depositions to be taken by a tape recorder.

It appears that the deposition of the defendant was noticed to be taken by the Assistant Personnel Director of the Dining Car Department and by the Personnel Director of the Dining Car Department, and by another employee. Subpoenas were served upon the persons whose depositions were noticed, and subpoena fees paid. The moving party seemed to be a little confused as to whether he was taking the deposition of the defendant through these individuals, or taking the depositions of the individuals as witnesses. When the witnesses appeared for the taking of the depositions, the moving party sought to have the depositions recorded by tape recorder rather than by a stenographer. The defendant refused to proceed in this manner and the issue has now been submitted to the Court.

Rule 30(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., states, with reference to depositions, that

> “ * * * The testimony shall be taken stenographically and transcribed unless the parties agree otherwise.”

Testimony taken by a tape recorder is not taken stenographically. Failure to have a stenographer record the deposition would therefore not be a compliance with the rule. The defendant was justified in refusing to proceed unless the deposition was taken in accordance with the rule.

It has been pointed out that the New York courts have allowed examinations before trial to be taken by tape recorder rather than by stenographers. Gotthelf v. Hillcrest Lumber Co., 280 App.Div. 668, 116 N.Y.S.2d 873 (1st Dep’t 1952); Catapano v. Shapiro, 6 A.D.2d 1054, 179 N.Y.S.2d 458 (2d Dep’t 1958). The New York courts, however, were not bound by any specific rule such as exists in the instant case. This Court has no power to change the provisions of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Whether the rule should be amended to allow recording devices to be used in connection with the taking of depositions is a matter of policy which cannot be decided by this Court. The Court is bound by the rule.

The Court therefore directs that the deposition to be taken shall be recorded stenographically, in accordance with the rule, or otherwise shall not be taken.

The moving party has failed to establish that the three individuals subpoenaed by him were officers or managing agents of the defendant. Plaintiff had the right to take the depositions of these individuals as witnesses and as such they were entitled to receive subpoena fees. So ordered.
<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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Aspect Medical
Systems, Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended September 27, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
the undersigned, Nassib G. Chamoun, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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.

                                                        /s/ Nassib G. Chamoun
                                                        ------------------------
Dated: November 10, 2003                                Nassib G. Chamoun
                                                        Chief Executive Officer

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