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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE UNAUDITED
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF MARCH 31, 1998 AND THE UNAUDITED
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1998 IN THE REPORT
ON FORM 10-QSB/A FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1998 OF BRISTOL RETAIL
SOLUTIONS, INC. AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001016657
<NAME> BRISTOL RETAIL SOLUTIONS
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       1,327,801
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,353,760
<ALLOWANCES>                                   392,809
<INVENTORY>                                  3,171,255
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,989,173
<PP&E>                                       1,020,039
<DEPRECIATION>                                 304,714
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,931,557
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,257,860
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         10
<COMMON>                                         5,557
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,582,644
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                13,931,557
<SALES>                                      6,261,896
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,261,896
<CGS>                                        4,061,882
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,655,391
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                57,184
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (450,679)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,500
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (453,179)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.17)
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 23.1

               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent certified public accountants, we hereby consent to the
incorporation of our report dated November 25, 1998 included in this Form 10-K,
into the Company's previously filed Registration Statements on Form S-8 File No.
333-84167 and Form S-8 File No. 333-92797.

/S/McKEAN, PAUL, CHRYCY, FLETCHER & CO.
McKEAN, PAUL, CHRYCY, FLETCHER & CO.
Miami, Florida

Plantation, Florida,
April 5, 2001.
#### Kalman Yeger et al., Appellants, v E*Trade Securities LLC, Respondent.

[861 NYS2d 329]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered February 28, 2007, which denied plaintiffs’ motion to amend the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiffs failed to show merit to their proposed amendment, which would have added a new theory of recovery *(Glenn Partition v Trustees of Columbia Univ. in City of N.Y.,*169 AD2d 488 [1991]), and further offered no valid reason for their delay in proposing it, even though they knew about its basis in 2001.

The de minimis nature of the alleged damages for the proposed claim does not impact on its merit *(see Weinberg v Hertz Corp.,*116 AD2d 1 [1986], *affd*69 NY2d 979 [1987]), but plaintiffs were refunded the account fees they had contested. Accordingly, the motion court providently determined, in its discretion, that they would not be proper class representatives for the proposed claim, and the theory sought to be added would not be appropriate for class-action treatment.

*442The court also properly disallowed plaintiffs’ effort to restore a cause of action based on General Business Law § 349, which it had previously dismissed.

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining contentions *and*find them unavailing. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Nardelli, Moskowitz, Acosta and DeGrasse, JJ.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT  11.1


                              CENTRAL RENTS, INC.

                        COMPUTATION OF EARNING PER SHARE
                  (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)
                    FOR THE YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND
              1995 AND THE PERIOD JUNE 4, 1994 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1994



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                          1996             1995            1994
                                                                         ------          ---------       ---------
<S>                                                                      <C>              <C>             <C>
Net loss applicable to common shares                                     $ (1,840)        $ (9,155)       $ (9,159)
                                                                         =========        ========        ========

Common shares outstanding at beginning of period                          551,045          534,000         534,000

Issuance of common shares, weighted average                                  -               7,985            -

Dilutive effect of exercise of options outstanding                           -                -               -
                                                                         ---------        --------        --------

Weighted average common shares outstanding                                551,045          541,985         534,000
                                                                          =======         ========        ========


Net loss per common share                                                  $(3.34)         $(16.89)        $(17.15)
                                                                          ========        ========        ========
</TABLE>


                                                                          45
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 191 (Wednesday, October 4, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 46313]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21336]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail and First-Class Package Service 
Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of notice required under 39 U.S.C. 3642(d)(1): October 4, 
2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
September 29, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail & 
First-Class Package Service Contract 58 to Competitive Product List. 
Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2017-214, CP2017-
322.

Elizabeth A. Reed,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2017-21336 Filed 10-3-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Exhibit 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC
                  REPORT As adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
                         the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the first quarter ended
September 30, 2005 of Integrated BioPharma, Inc. (the "Company") as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Eric
Friedman, the Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Integrated
BioPharma, Inc. certifies, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to his knowledge:

(1)           the Report fully complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a)
              or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
              78m or 78o(d)); and

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

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement 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.


Date: November 3, 2005               By: /s/ Eric Friedman
                                     ---------------------
                                     Eric Friedman,
                                     Vice President & Chief Financial Officer
#### Lori SPANO; Alan Opoien; Patricia McGrath; Joan Horton, Plaintiffs, and Charles Burr; Shannon Massey, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SAFECO CORPORATION; Safeco Insurance Co. of America; American State Insurance Company; Safeco Insurance Company of Illinois; Safeco Insurance Company of Oregon, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 04-35313.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Jan. 9, 2008.

Steve D. Larson, Esq., Scott A. Shorr, Esq., Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting *&*Schla-chter, PC, Portland, OR, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

John A. Bennett, Esq., Lisa E. Lear, Esq., Bullivant Houser Bailey, PC, Portland, OR, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: STEPHEN REINHARDT, MARSHA S. BERZON, and JAY S. BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This appeal comes before us on remand from the Supreme Court. *See Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Burr,*— U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 2201, 167 L.Ed.2d 1045 (2007). The Court affirmed our holding in *Reynolds v. Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc.,*435 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir.2006), that liability under 15 U.S.C. § 1681n(a) for “willfully failing] to comply” with the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) includes reckless disregard of statutory duties. *Burr,*127 S.Ct. at 2208. The Court also agreed with our holding that quoting or charging a first-time premium can be “an increase in any charge for ... any insurance, existing or applied for.” *Id.*at 2210 (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(k)(l)(B)(i)). In addition, the Court held that notice is required only when consideration of a consumer’s credit report is a necessary condition for the increased rate. *Id.*at 2212 (citing 15 U.S.C. § 1681m(a)). Finally, reversing our holding, the Court held that the baseline for determining whether a first-time rate is a disadvantageous increase is the rate the applicant would have received had the company not taken his credit score into account. *Id.*at 2213.

The Court held that Safeco was not liable because its misreading of the statute was not reckless, and therefore was not “willful.” *Id.*at 2215-16.

Plaintiffs did not raise on appeal any basis for liability other than the theory rejected by the Court. Therefore we affirm the district court’s summary judgment.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 8.1

List of Significant Subsidiaries



|                                           |  |              |  |                 
|------------------------------------------ |  | ------------ |  | ----------------
|Subsidiaries                               |  | Jurisdiction |  | Usual Name      
|Compañía Eléctrica San Isidro S.A.         |  | Chile        |  | San Isidro      
|Compañía Eléctrica Tarapacá S.A.           |  | Chile        |  | Celta           
|Empresa Eléctrica Pehuenche S.A.           |  | Chile        |  | Pehuenche       
|Endesa Eco S.A.                            |  | Chile        |  | Endesa Eco      
|Sociedad Concesionaria Túnel El Melón S.A. |  | Chile        |  | Túnel El Melón  
|Endesa Costanera S.A.                      |  | Argentina    |  | Endesa Costanera
|Hidroeléctrica El Chocón S.A.              |  | Argentina    |  | El Chocón       
|Emgesa S.A. E.S.P.                         |  | Colombia     |  | Emgesa          
|Edegel S.A.A.                              |  | Perú         |  | Edegel
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John Oswald, Also Known as Oswald John, Appellant.

[666 NYS2d 44]

—Appeal by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rios, J.), both rendered December 1, 1995, convicting him of burglary in the second degree and criminal mischief in the fourth degree under Indictment No. 732/94, and burglary in the second degree and criminal mischief in the second degree under Indictment No. 3269/ 94, upon jury verdicts, and imposing sentences.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

The trial court’s denial of the defendant’s request to charge criminal trespass in the second degree as a lesser-included offense of burglary in the second degree was proper since there was no reasonable view of the evidence that the defendant committed the lesser offenses but not the greater *(see, People v Glover,*57 NY2d 61, 64). The defendant’s contention that he had a license or privilege to enter one of the burglarized premises did not justify submitting the lesser-included offense *533to the jury with respect to that charge *(see, People v Figueroa,*154 AD2d 389, 390; *People v Harrell,*133 AD2d 706, 707).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Ritter, J. P., Sullivan, Gold-stein and Lerner, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .





                                  A.S.V., INC.
                 EXHIBIT 11 - COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                  YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2003, 2002 AND 2001

<Table>
<Caption>
                                                           2003             2002             2001
                                                       ------------     ------------     ------------
<S>                                                    <C>              <C>              <C>
BASIC
   Earnings
     Net earnings                                      $  8,717,903     $  1,353,129     $    755,668
                                                       ============     ============     ============

   Shares
     Weighted average number of common
       shares outstanding                                10,218,793       10,170,645       10,215,855
                                                       ============     ============     ============

   Earnings per common share                           $        .85     $        .13     $        .07
                                                       ============     ============     ============

DILUTED
   Earnings
     Net earnings                                      $  8,717,903     $  1,353,129     $    755,668
                                                       ============     ============     ============

   Shares
     Weighted average number of common
       shares outstanding                                10,218,793       10,170,645       10,215,855
     Assuming exercise of options and warrants
       reduced by the number of shares which could
       have been purchased with the proceeds from
       the exercise of such options and warrants            966,890           58,412          136,613
                                                       ------------     ------------     ------------

     Weighted average number of common and
       common equivalent shares outstanding              11,185,683       10,229,057       10,352,468
                                                       ============     ============     ============

   Earnings per common share                           $        .78     $        .13     $        .07
                                                       ============     ============     ============
</Table>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

LYDELL TEEMAN COBBS,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 260 WAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 27th day of November, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
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.                  

###### Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board

# AGENCY:

Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice announces the appointment of the members of the Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board for the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board. The purpose of the Performance Review Board is to make written recommendations on each executive's annual summary ratings, performance-based pay adjustment, and performance awards to the appointing authority.

# DATES:

This notice is applicable September 29, 2017.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kelly Powell, HR Specialist, at 202-942-1681.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Title 5, U.S. Code, 4314(c)(4), requires that the appointment of Performance Review Board members be published in the                     **Federal Register**                     before Board service commences. The following persons will serve on the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board's Performance Review Board which will review initial summary ratings to ensure the ratings are consistent with established performance requirements, reflect meaningful distinctions among senior executives based on their relative performance and organizational results and provide recommendations for ratings, awards, and pay adjustments in a fair and equitable manner: Susan Crowder, Gisile Goethe, Renee Wilder Guerin, and Kim Weaver.                

Megan Grumbine,

General Counsel, Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board.

[FR Doc. 2017-20871 Filed 9-28-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 6760-01-P
#### Nelson Gonzalez, Appellant, v Anchor Bank Corp., Inc., Doing Business as Anchor Savings Bank, Respondent. (And a Third-Party Action.)

[666 NYS2d 151]

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.), entered June 12, 1996, which, in an action against a bank to recover a deposit made on behalf of a minor, denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as time-barred, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The interest-bearing bank account at issue was opened jointly in the name of plaintiff and his mother in 1978 to hold the $15,000 proceeds from the settlement of the then infant plaintiffs personal injury action pursuant to the terms of an infant’s compromise order. The order provided that such proceeds were payable, upon demand, on presentment of proper proof that plaintiff had reached 18 years of age. According to plaintiff, he went to defendant bank on May 24, 1986 to withdraw all monies on deposit and was told that his account had been closed on March 29, 1985, his eighteenth birthday, by a woman identifying herself as his mother and a young man identifying himself as plaintiff. This action was commenced on April 20, 1992, more than seven years after his account was closed.

Since defendant bank was no longer subject to article 6 of the Banking Law inasmuch as it was chartered as a Federal mutual savings bank in 1980, plaintiff may not avail himself of the 20-year Statute of Limitations prescribed in Banking Law § 239 (7) *(see,*Banking Law § 2 [4]; § 229 [1]), and his action, whether characterized as one for recovery by a depositor of money paid upon an unauthorized signature *(see,*Banking Law § 676) or one for money had and received, is governed by the six-year period of limitations applicable to actions upon a contractual obligation (CPLR 213 [2]; *see, Hechter v New York Life Ins. Co.,*46 NY2d 34, 39-40; *Schreibman v Chase Manhattan Bank,*15 AD2d 769, 770-771). Thus, inasmuch as any cause of action on plaintiff’s behalf accrued on March 29, 1985, the date of the bank’s allegedly improper payment and not on the subsequent date when he received knowledge of defendant’s alleged breach *(see, Bollag v National City Bank,*225 App Div *133218; *Wakulaw v State Bank,*214 App Div 673, 677), the complaint was properly dismissed as time-barred.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Williams and Andrias, JJ.
Allied
      Security Innovations, Inc.


**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 Annual Report of Allied Security Innovations, Inc. (the
        "Company") on Form 10-KS for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with
        the
        Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
        Anthony
        Shupin, Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer, of the Company,
        certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
        of the
        Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
  (1)
        The
        Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company 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.
  A
        signed
        original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
        to
        Allied Security Innovations, Inc. and will be retained by Allied Security
        Innovations, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
        or its
        staff upon request.
 Date: April 14, 2008/s/
                      Anthony ShupinAnthony
                        Shupin