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


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAY-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAY-31-1999
<CASH>                                         254
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               254
<PP&E>                                         154,175
<DEPRECIATION>                                 104,411
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 50,018
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          92,904
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       4,435
<OTHER-SE>                                     (47,321)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   50,018
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               16,524
<CGS>                                          21,634
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,110)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,110)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,110)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (.001)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.001)



</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 15.1**

** **

 
|  |  

 

Deloitte  & Touche S.p.A.

Via  Tortona, 25

20144  Milano

Italia

 

Tel:  +39 02 83322111

Fax:  +39 02 83322112

www.deloitte.it |
|--|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTINGFIRM**

 

**TOLUXOTTICA GROUP S.p.A.**

 

Weconsent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements Nos.333-147724, 333-14006 and 333-9546 on Form S-8 of our reports dated June 23,2009, relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statementschedule of Luxottica Group S.p.A. (which report expresses an unqualifiedopinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to****the Company’sadoption of Financial Accounting Standards Board Interpretation No. 48, “Accountingfor Uncertainty in Income Taxes — an Interpretation of FASB Statement No. 109,”effective January 1, 2007, and the Company’s adoption of the measurementdate provision and recognition and disclosure provisions of Statement ofFinancial Accounting Standards No. 158, “Employers’ Accounting for DefinedBenefit Pension and Other Postretirement Plans—an amendment of FASB Statements No. 87,88, 106 and 132(R)” effective December 31, 2008 and December 31,2006, respectively), and the effectiveness of Luxottica Group S.p.A.’s internalcontrol over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 20-Fof Luxottica Group S.p.A. for the year ended December 31, 2008.

 

 

 

Milan,Italy 

June 23, 2009

 

 

Ancona Bari BergamoBologna Brescia Cagliari Firenze Genova Milano Napoli Padova Parma Perugia Roma Torino Treviso Verona

 

Sede legale: Via Tortona,25 - 20144 Milano

Capitale Sociale: Euro 10.328.220,00 i.v.

Partita IVA/Codice Fiscale/Registrodelle Imprese Milano n. 03049560166 - R.E.A. Milano n. 1720239

 

Member of Deloitte ToucheTohmatsu

 

----
**EXHIBIT 13.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Inconnection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Luxottica Group S.p.A.(the “Company”) for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2009 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Enrico Cavatorta, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to myknowledge, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18U.S.C. Section 1350), that:

 

1.             The Report fully complieswith the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 
|   | By:                         | /s/ ENRICO  CAVATORTA    |
|--------|-----------------------------|--------------------------|
|   |                        | Enrico Cavatorta         |
|   |                        | Chief Financial  Officer |
|   |                        |                     |
|   |                        |                     |
|   | Dated:  April 29, 2010 |

 

Thiswritten statement accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
<PAGE>

              [NETHERLAND, SEWELL & ASSOCIATES, INC. LETTERHEAD]

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

           CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS

    We hereby consent to the use of our name and information related to reserves
in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Western Gas Resources, Inc. and
Subsidiaries (the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 1999.


                                     NETHERLAND, SEWELL & ASSOCIATES, INC.



                                    By: /s/ Clarence M. Netherland
                                        ---------------------------------------
                                            Clarence M. Netherland
                                            Chairman

Dallas, Texas
March 9, 2000
EXHIBIT 23




                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT
                          -----------------------------



The Board of Directors
Bankers Corp:

We consent to incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
33-42104, 33-42105 and 33-94764 on Form S-8 of Bankers Corp. of our report dated
January 31, 1997, except as to note 2, which is as of February 5, 1997, relating
to the consolidated statements of condition of Bankers Corp. and subsidiary as
of December 31, 1996 and 1995, and the related consolidated statements of
income, changes in stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the years in
the three-year period ended December 31, 1996, which report appears in the
December 31, 1996 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Bankers Corp.



                                               KPMG Peat Marwick LLP


Short Hills, New Jersey
March 25, 1997
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2651 

To require that the United States Government prioritize all obligations on 

the debt held by the public, Social Security benefits, and military pay 

in the event that the debt limit is reached, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 26, 2011 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT (for himself, Mr. MULVANEY, Mr. GARRETT, and Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina) introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To require that the United States Government prioritize 

all obligations on the debt held by the public, Social 

Security benefits, and military pay in the event that 

the debt limit is reached, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This title may be cited as the ‘‘Ensuring the Full 

5 Faith and Credit of the United States and Protecting 

6 America’s Soldiers and Seniors Act’’. 

7 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

8 Congress finds the following: 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 2651 IH

1 (1) The Secretary of the Treasury is legally re2 quired to carry out the obligations set forth in Pub3 lic Law 104–121. 

4 (2) The debt obligations held by the Social Se5 curity trust fund may only be redeemed in order to 

6 pay Social Security benefits and necessary adminis7 trative expenses. 

8 (3) So long as there is a positive balance of as9 sets in the Social Security trust fund, an appropriate 

10 amount of obligations may be converted into an 

11 equal amount of publicly held debt in order to fi12 nance the full and timely payment of all Social Secu13 rity obligations without exceeding the debt ceiling. 

14 SEC. 3. PRIORITIZE OBLIGATIONS ON THE DEBT HELD BY 

15 THE PUBLIC, SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS, 

16 AND MILITARY PAY. 

17 In the event that the debt of the United States Gov18 ernment reaches the statutory limit as defined in section 

19 3101 of title 31, United States Code, the following shall 

20 take equal priority over all other obligations incurred by 

21 the Government of the United States: 

22 (1) The authority of the Department of the 

23 Treasury contained in section 3123 of title 31, 

24 United States Code, to pay with legal tender the 

25 principal and interest on debt held by the public. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 2651 IH

1 (2) The authority of the Commissioner of Social 

2 Security to pay monthly old-age, survivors’ and dis3 ability insurance benefits under title II of the Social 

4 Security Act. 

5 (3) The payment of pay and allowances for 

6 members of the Armed Forces on active duty. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
#### John Harvey ADAMSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James G. RICKETTS, et al., Respondent-Appellee.

No. 84-2069.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

July 3, 1985.

Timothy K. Ford, Seattle, Wash., Timothy J. Foley, Hancock, Rothert & Bunshoft, San Francisco, Cal., for petitioner-appellant.

William J. Schafer, III, Phoenix, Ariz., for respondent-appellee.

Before BROWNING, Chief Judge, GOODWIN, WALLACE, SNEED, KENNEDY, ANDERSON, HUG, TANG, SKO-PIL, SCHROEDER, FLETCHER, FARRIS, PREGERSON, ALARCON, POOLE, FERGUSON, NELSON, CANBY, BOOCHEVER, NORRIS, REINHARDT, BEEZER, HALL, WIGGINS, and BRUNETTI, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

Upon a vote of a majority of the regular active judges of this court, it is ordered that this case be heard by the en banc court pursuant to Rule 25 of the Rules of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The previous three-judge panel assignment is withdrawn, 758 F.2d 441.
Exhibit 99.2                    Certification of Chief Financial
Officer.

In connection with the periodic report of Optika Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report), I, Steven M. Johnson, Chief Financial Officer, Executive Vice President, Secretary and Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of
the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:

| | (1)  the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and
for the periods indicated.

| | 5/13/2003 |  | /s/ STEVEN M. JOHNSON                                                                     | 
| | --------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
| |           |  |                                                                                           | 
| | (Date)    |  | Steven M. Johnson                                                                         | 
| |           |  | Chief Financial Officer, Executive Vice President, Secretary and Chief Accounting Officer |
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

AVON ROAD PARTNERS, LP, a § Delaware limited partnership, § ROBERT BERMAN and DENNIS § VACCO, § § Defendants-Below, § Appellants, § § v. § § No. 164, 2014 CASTLEPOINT INSURANCE § COMPANY, a New York § Court Below: Court of insurance company, TOW SUR, § Chancery of the Sta te of LLC, a Connecticut limited liability § Delaware company, REL-REM HOLDINGS, § INC., a Delaware corporation, § C.A. No. 9021-VCG TROMBONE, LLC, a Connecticut § limited liability company, JOEL § ASEN and JAMES ROBERTS, § § Plaintiffs-Below, § Appellees § § and § § CINIUM FINANCIAL SERVICES § CORPORATION, a Delaware § Corporation, § § Nominal Defendant-Below. §

Submitted: October 29, 2014 Decided: October 30, 2014

Before STRINE , Chief Justice; HOLLAND and RIDGELY , Justices.O R D E R

This 30th day of October 2014, the Court, after hea ring oral argument

and upon consideration of the record in this case, has concluded that this

appeal should be affirmed on the basis of and for t he reasons assigned by the

Court of Chancery in its decision of March 3, 2014;

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the decis ion

of the Court of Chancery is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr.

Chief Justice
#### Molly O’NEILL and Mary Claire McDonough, Plaintiffs, v. BLUE COMET CAB CORP., Philip Kleinman, Robert H. Reinhardt, Richard Bensen and Marcus D. Beard, Defendants.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

Nov. 4, 1953.

*162Samuel F. Berkon, New York City, for plaintiffs.

Jerome Heffer, New York City, for defendants Blue Comet Cab Corp. and P. Kleinman.

Davidson, Cohen & Zelkin, New York City, for defendant Marcus D. Beard.

SUGARMAN, District Judge.

Plaintiffs move for an order striking the answer of Marcus D. Beard, one of the defendants, for his failure to appear for examination on oral deposition pursuant to a notice dated January 7, 1952.

Beard’s attorneys oppose this motion, citing F.R.Civ.P. 45(d) (2), 28 U.S.C.A., upon the ground that he resides in North Carolina and the moving papers fail to state that a subpoena was served upon him. That rule, when read in conjunction with F.R.Civ.P. 26(a), applies only to the examination of a witness. Subpoena need not be served upon a party for the taking of his deposition pursuant to notice.1

Defendant’s attorneys also oppose this motion upon the ground that their “files fail to disclose” that a copy of such notice was served upon them and they do not recall having received or seen it. However, plaintiffs’ attorney states by affidavit that a copy thereof was served by mail upon defendant’s attorneys on January 7, 1952. Such service was complete on mailing.2

If the examination in this district of defendant Beard constituted a hardship, he should have seasonably moved for appropriate relief 3 after his counsel first learned that plaintiffs’ counsel claimed the notice to have been served. That was, at the latest, when the instant motion was first on the calendar on June 25, 1953. This motion has been adjourned six times and was finally argued, at the court’s insistence, on October 20, 1953. In all that time no motion for relief under Rule 30(b) was brought on by the defendant. Defendant’s silence during this four month period lends credence to the assertion of plaintiffs’ attorney that negotiations, including those at the pre-trial conference on May 20, 1952, were had by him with defendant’s counsel for the production of the defendant in this district for examination.

Under these circumstances, plaintiffs’ motion to strike defendant Beard’s answer is granted unless said defendant appears for the taking of his deposition upon oral examination at the office of the Clerk of this court, Room 601, United States Courthouse, within thirty days from the entry of an order on this motion.4

Settle order.

1

. Collins v. Wayland, 9 Cir., 139 F.2d. 677, certiorari denied 322 U.S. 744, 64 S.Ct. 1151, 88 L.Ed. 1576.

2

. F.R.Civ.P. 5(b).

3

. F.R.Civ.P. 30b.

4

. F.R.Civ.P. 37(d).
Exhibit 10.2
 Imation Corp. 2008 Stock Incentive Plan
Performance-Based Stock Option Agreement
    Grant of Non-qualified Performance-Based Stock Option
 Purchase Price
 Term of the Option
 Vesting of the Option
 
 Transferability




---



##### 



Effect of Termination of Employment
     2




---



##### 



and
 Anti-Dilution and Fundamental Change Adjustments
    3




---



##### 



Forfeiture
 4




---



##### 



Manner of Exercise
 5




---



##### 



Issuance of Shares
 Taxes
 Definitions
    6




---



##### 



7




---



##### 



Governing Law .
 Plan Provisions .
 No Right to Continue Service or Employment
 Entire Agreement
 8




---



##### 



Modification
 Shares Subject to Agreement
 Severability
 Headings
 Participants Acknowledgments
 Parties Bound
 9




---



##### 



IMATION CORP.By:Name:Title: 10




---



##### 



Exhibit A
 11
**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 Amarillo Biosciences, Inc. on Form
      10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned,
      in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies 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 his 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 operation of the Company.






Date:
                August 9, 2006
            By:/s/ Joseph M. CumminsJoseph
                M. CumminsPresident,
                Chief Executive Officer







Date:
                August 9, 2006
            By:
                /s/ Gary CoyGary
                CoyVice
                President, Chief Financial Officer
[952 NYS2d 370]

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Cavell Craig Tyrell, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

July 16, 2012

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Legal Aid Society,*New York City *(Harold V. Ferguson, Jr.,*of counsel), for appellant. *Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney,*New York City *(Ryan Gee*of counsel), for respondent.

*17OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction, rendered March 1, 2009, affirmed.

Since defendant did not move to withdraw his guilty plea, and since this case does not come within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement *(see People v Lopez,*71 NY2d 662 [1988]), his challenges to the validity of the plea are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject them on the merits. Defendant’s counseled guilty plea to one count of fifth-degree criminal possession of marihuana — with the understanding that he would be sentenced to time served and in full satisfaction of an information whose top count was a fourth-degree criminal sale of marihuana charge potentially punishable by a one-year jail sentence — was knowing, intelligent and voluntary. Further, a plea of guilty will be sustained in the absence of a factual allocution where, as here, there is no indication that the guilty plea assented to by the defendant in the presence of counsel was improvident or baseless *(see People v Fooks,*21 NY2d 338, 350 [1967] [decided with *People v Nixon]; People v Winbush,*199 AD2d 447, 448 [1993]; *People v Moore,*91 AD2d 1050 [1983]). Granted, the better practice is for the plea court to ensure that some elicitation of the underlying facts of the crime pleaded to appears on the record. However, the Court of Appeals has “repeatedly steered clear of ‘a uniform mandatory catechism of pleading defendants’ in favor of ‘broad discretions controlled by flexible standards’ ” *(People v Alexander,*19 NY3d 203, 219 [2012], quoting *People v Nixon,*21 NY2d at 353-354), and has made clear that it will uphold plea agreements accepted without the benefit of a factual allocution where the record shows that the defendant “understood the charges and made an intelligent decision to enter a plea” *(People v Goldstein,*12 NY3d 295, 301 [2009], citing *People v Fooks,*21 NY2d at 350). As was the case in *Goldstein,*the defendant at bar, “represented by counsel and no novice to the criminal justice system, clearly understood the nature of the charges to which he was pleading and willingly entered his plea to obtain the benefit of the bargain he had struck” *(Goldstein*at 301).

Defendant, through counsel, validly waived the right to be prosecuted upon an information by expressly waiving the reading of such right *(see People v Connor,*63 NY2d 11, 14 [1984]; *cf. People v Casey,*95 NY2d 354, 359 [2000]).

*18Shulman, J.E, Hunter, Jr., and Torres, JJ, concur.